- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:26:50 -0500
- To: Martin Kliehm <martin.kliehm@namics.com>
- CC: W3C HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
Martin Kliehm wrote: > 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: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/ >> HTML+RDFa: http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/ >> >> and to publish as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) the following >> documents: >> >> HTML Microdata: http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/ >> HTML Canvas 2D Context: http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/ >> HTML: The Markup Language: http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/ >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/ > > 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 > factions. Martin: while I share you hopes... I must ask: are you personally stepping forward and saying that you will do the work of merging these two documents? > 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. There are a number of issues that will block progress to final Rec, including but not limited to the following: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/open The way we handle other issues is that we mark the status in the document itself: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-canvas-element.html#the-canvas-element Are there other places in the document(s) that you feel that this particular concern should be noted? > 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? See: http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#participation In particular "There is no minimum requirement for other Participants". > Regards, > Martin Kliehm > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/canvas-api/canvas-2d-api.html > [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups#good-standing > [3] http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=40318&public=1 - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2010 21:27:21 UTC