W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

RE: [Moderator Action] Re: author-only view of HTML5 and ACTION-190

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:05:59 +0000
To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E3EACD022300B94D88613639CF4E25F81A219817@TK5EX14MBXC134.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Mike's note is tracked in the list of Related emails and I added a Related note as you suggested.

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

-----Original Message-----
From: Noah Mendelsohn [mailto:nrm@arcanedomain.com] 
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 11:58 AM
To: Michael[tm] Smith
Cc: Paul Cotton; public-html@w3.org; www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Moderator Action] Re: author-only view of HTML5 and ACTION-190

That's great, thank you.  Assuming the commitment to publish this as a part of the Rec is a formal one on behalf of the HTML working group, as I assume it is, then the TAG's concern is indeed resolved, and I thank you very much for both the work you've done, and for the careful response.

Paul Cotton wrote (earlier):

> I believe the ACTION-190 was closed when this document was published in January.  See:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html-markup-20110113/

That's what misled me. Obviously it's up to the HTML WG to decide how to track its own action resolutions, but I note that the title of the issue is indeed "Fix pubrules problems with "author-only" view of the HTML5 specification", so I wonder whether it might be appropriate to note that it is indeed the publication of http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110113/author/ that should be associated with closing the action, as opposed to http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html-markup-20110113/?

Thank you.


On 4/17/2011 3:16 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
> Noah Mendelsohn<nrm@arcanedomain.com>, 2011-04-16 18:44 +0000:
>> Actually no, this does not resolve the concern. The document you 
>> reference above is indeed of interest to the TAG too, and we are glad 
>> that it is being published. but it is not the one in question here 
>> I'm fairly sure. That is [1], which is the author view of the main 
>> spec. That was the one that Mike had told us in Lyon he had left out 
>> of the then recently published package due to the work involved in 
>> pubrules compliance, and you (Paul) and I agreed that the TAG's concern would be resolved if it were put onto the rec track.
>> I think it's clear from your 4 Nov 2010 message, quoted in part in 
>> the thread below, that it's [1] that's in question here. Can you 
>> confirm that it too is going into the Rec. packages? Thank you.
> It is now being published along with full spec each time we produce a 
> new working draft of that, and will continue to be going forward. The 
> only time the author view was not published along with the spec was 
> the 19 October 2010 round of publications. But after that we did two 
> more publication rounds, and the author view was included in both:
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110113/author/
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110405/author/
Received on Sunday, 17 April 2011 16:08:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:36 UTC