W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:26:50 -0500
Message-ID: <4B7B0D9A.5040609@intertwingly.net>
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:


The way we handle other issues is that we mark the status in the 
document itself:


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?



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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:58 UTC