Re: CfC: Publish HTML5 Edition for Web Authors as First Public Working Draft

The Chairs have reviewed the responses to the CfC. There was much discussion. This include objections to publishing this draft as normative and objections to not publishing this draft as normative. No one seems to object to publishing the draft at all. In the end, the addition of the following text to the Status of the Document section seems to address all of the conditional objections:

"This document is an automated redaction of the full HTML5 specification. As such, the two documents are supposed to agree on normative matters concerning Web authors. However, if the documents disagree, this is a bug in the redaction process and the unredacted full HTML specification takes precedence. Readers are encouraged to report such discrepancies as bugs in the bug tracking system of the HTML WG."

With the addition of the above text, the CfC passes.

Therefore, the Chairs request that the text above be added to the Status of the Document of the HTML5 Edition for Web Authors. Once that is done, the document will be clear for publication as a First Public Working Draft. 


On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working
> Draft (FPWD) of the HTML5 Edition for Web Authors spec:
> Note that the result of the CfC[1] on issue-59[2] the WG previously decided maintain this document.  What was overlooked at the time was publishing it[3].
> Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive
> responses are encouraged. If there are no objections by Wednesday, June 15, this resolution will carry.
> Considerations to note:
> - As a First Public Working Draft, this publication will trigger
>  patent policy review.
> - As a Working Draft publication, the document does not need not be
>  complete, to meet all technical requirements, or to have consensus
>  on the contents.
> In the event that this CfC passes, the front matter and style will be adjusted to match other Working Drafts in the event that the decision is to proceed as a FPWD.
> - Sam Ruby
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]

Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 06:21:42 UTC