WG Decision: Publish HTML5, RDFa heartbeats and Microdata, 2D Context and H:TML as FPWDs

Regarding the following 6 documents:

  * http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/      HTML 5
  * http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/      HTML+RDFa
  * http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/        HTML Microdata
  * http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/ HTML Canvas 2D Context
  * http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/    HTML: The Markup Language
  * http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/ HTML5 diffs from HTML4

The chairs have decided to (1) recommend publishing all six documents at 
this time, (2) request a W3C decision on whether these specific 
documents are to be considered in scope at this time for the HTML WG, 
and (3) request that the W3C Staff work with Julian Reschke and Larry 
Masinter on the wording of the status sections.

Details follow:

Given Julian's clarification[1], and the list of previously resolved 
objections detailed in [2], the HTML WG chairs find that the WG 
supports with zero blocking objections the publishing documents HTML5, 
RDFa, and the HTML difference document in accordance with the W3C 
heartbeat requirements.  Furthermore, the WG supports with zero blocking 
objections the publishing of H:TML as a FPWD.

The WG does have individual and separate objections to publishing 
Microdata and the Canvas 2D Context API.

Martin Kliehm's remaining objection to the publishing of the HTML Canvas 
2D Context document as a FPWD is on the lack of accessibility.  Others 
indicated that there is considerable accessibility support in the API, 
and that publication of a Working Draft does not imply completeness. 
While Martin has not withdrawn his objection, the chairs find that the 
Group has duly considered the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far 
as is possible and reasonable, the group SHOULD move on.  Accordingly 
the chairs have decided to request publication of this document.

Krzysztof Maczyński objected to publishing HTML Microdata because RDFa 
already satisfies Microdata's use cases.  Others, including many in the 
RDFa community, support the publication of this draft.  While Krzysztof 
has clarified that he does not intend for his objection to be treated as 
a Formal Objection, he has not withdrawn his objection.  Again, the 
chairs find that the Group has duly considered the legitimate concerns 
of dissenters as far as is possible and reasonable, the group SHOULD 
move on.  Accordingly the chairs have decided to request publication of 
this document.

All remaining issues deal with scope of the working group, and with 
status questions.  The chairs reaffirm that we believe that all three 
documents are within the scope of the working group.  We expect that we 
will get a decision on this matter in response to our publication 
request.  And we expect that the status sections will reflect that 
decision, and to address Julian's remaining concerns.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0837.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/att-0665/00-part

Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 17:15:45 UTC