Re: CfC: Publish HTML5, RDFa heartbeats and Microdata, 2D Context and H:TML as FPWDs

On 10.02.2010 17:26, Sam Ruby wrote:
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish new revisions of the
> following documents in accordance with the Working Group Heartbeat
> requirements:
> HTML 5:
> and to publish as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) the following
> documents:
> HTML Microdata:
> HTML Canvas 2D Context:
> HTML: The Markup Language:

I personally support the publication of the revisions of "HTML 5" and 
"HTML+RDFa". I also support publication of "HTML: The Markup Language".

Concerning HTML Microdata I share Julian Reschke's concerns and support 
his proposals.

While I generally agree that the Canvas 2D draft content will block the 
HTML 5 draft from advancing to the next level and should therefore be 
split off, I formally object the publication of the aforementioned 
Canvas 2D document as First Public Working Draft (FPWD) because I have 
serious concerns regarding a consensus within the group and 
accessibility of the Canvas element.

a) Doug Schepers and Eliot Graff published a split-off in October [1] 
that hasn't been reflected in Ian Hickson's work. Obviously the group 
disagrees here, and I haven't seen any efforts to find a consensus. 
While a consensus is not officially required for publication as a FPWD, 
I certainly do now want Google and Microsoft drift off in different 
directions. I would suggest trying to merge the two documents first or 
at least I would like to see some dialog evolve publicly between the 

b) Accessibility support in Canvas does not exist at all. The HTML 
Accessibility Task Force currently is working with several browser 
vendors on proof of concept implementations to enable usage with 
assistive technologies. Publication as a separate Working Draft is 
giving a wrong signal of maturity and should therefore be postponed 
until the task force proposes an adequate solution.

Oh, and I have a question regarding the process: when we speak about 
silence as "no objection," is Good Standing [2] required to be eligible 
in the CfC? And if this would be a requirement, where is the majority of 
the 406 group participants [3] during the weekly telcons?

   Martin Kliehm


Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2010 20:11:36 UTC