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

Re: ISSUE-176 Change Proposal

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:20:56 -0400
Message-ID: <4E824C48.2000209@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
CC: HTML WG LIST <public-html@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Initial feedback (unvetted by my co-chairs).  As submitted, this does 
not meet the basic requirements for a Change Proposal.

The summary is intended to describe the change.  This summary describes 
the issue instead.  This, by itself, is not necessarily fatal, but 
should be corrected.

The problem, presumably is meant to cover the rationale.  It contains 
material intended for other folks, folks which are unlikely to be 
following change proposals.  This material should be removed and 
addressed separately.

The proposal details are the biggest problem.  This section is not a set 
of edit instructions, nor is it spec text.  In fact, it sketches out 
multiple proposals, and contains material which is not relevant to those 
proposals.  We have consistently rejected change proposals which do 
this, and I am confident that my co-chairs will join me in rejecting 
this one until or unless this problem is addressed.

I won't comment further on the impact section, beyond noting that the 
current text is felt by many to be buggy, and proposals that suggest 
restoring this text should address this point.

- Sam Ruby

On 09/27/2011 02:52 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
> Per request from HTML WG co-chairs[1], I'd like to submit the following
> Change Proposal for Issue 176: Revert the Edit that removed the Editing
> API from the HTML5 specification.
> Summary:
> Recently, the HTML5 editor, Ian Hickson, removed the entire section
> known as the Editing API from the HTML5 specification. However, the
> material was not incorporated into a new W3C Working Draft, and as the
> situation now stands, there is no text defining the Editing API for all
> user agents.
> The Problem:
> The Editing API section of the HTML5 specification has been in the
> document for some years now, and has been at least partially implemented
> by more than one user agent. To remove this section leaves this API
> undocumented, which could lead to lack of interoperability between
> implementations within the various user agents.
> In addition, by having this text in the HTML5 specification, and
> controlled by the HTML WG, the concepts covered in the specifications
> fall under the patent agreements that members enter into when they join
> W3C working groups. This is important to ensure that all relevant user
> agents feel comfortable implementing the Editing API, and that all HTML
> WG members are made aware of any potential patent claims related to this
> material before implementing this section.
> (Incidental to this Change Proposal, but possibly relevant: Recently,
> the W3C issued a Call for Exclusion for the HTML5 specification, as it
> is defined in the HTML5 Last Call document. This LC document does
> include the Editing API[2]. Frankly, I'm not sure what it means from a
> legal stand point to issue a Call for Exclusion on material that is
> subsequently and unilaterally removed from the WG document by one member
> company, only. Perhaps the W3C Legal department should comment on this?)
> As noted in the bug that led to this issue, not every member
> representing a major HTML5 user agent agrees with the move to remove the
> text documenting the Editing API completely from the W3C[3].
> It's not as if the material covered is outside of the scope of the HTML
> WG. Point of fact, the HTML WG is specifically chartered to provide
> documentation of an Editing API as part of its requirements for
> determining success[4]. In effect, removing this section undermines the
> HTML WG's effort to reach a successful conclusion.
> Solution:
> There are two possible solutions to the concerns outlined in the Problem
> section.
> The first is to revert this edit, returning the Editing API section to
> the HTML5 specification. If the reason why the section was removed was
> because there are problems with the section, those who have concerns
> about this section can then submit bugs outlining their concerns, which
> can then be addressed individually.
> The second is to propose a new Working Draft specification to the HTML
> WG that covers the Editing API. This would ensure that the Working
> Group's charter requirements are still met (providing documentation of
> the Editing API), and would have the added advantage of further
> simplifying the HTML5 specification--a worthy goal. If the editor of
> this new specification wishes to also address the technical concerns in
> the Editing API at the same time, I expect the group would find this
> acceptable. If any new technical concerns are introduced with the
> modifications, they can then be addressed individually as bugs.
> (As it stands now, there is no way to address _any_ concerns about the
> Editing API section, because the section has been completely removed).
> A third option has been floated, which is to form a group within the new
> W3C Community effort to encompass the Editing API. However, I do not
> find this to be a satisfactory solution to the concerns I listed
> earlier. The reason why is that, from my understanding of the W3C
> Community Group, it's complimentary to the Working Group efforts, not a
> replacement for the Working Groups. The ultimate goal for work coming
> out of the Community Groups (again, if I understand the purpose of this
> new W3C entity correctly), is moving any specifications that arise in
> the Community Groups into Working Groups for formalization.
> Such intermediate effort isn't necessary for the Editing API. The HTML
> WG is already chartered to provide some form of a deliverable for an
> Editing API. Work has been underway for some time in the group to
> provide an Editing API. It seems to me that trying to put this into a
> Community Group is really a backward step, and contravenes the intent of
> these Community Groups.
> Impact:
> Reverting the edit has little impact, and shouldn't take much time, as
> this is more of a version control change.
> Creating a new document does take time, but has an added advantage of
> being able to address areas of concern with one single move. And it does
> simplify the HTML5 specification.
> Thank you for your consideration of my change proposal.
> Shelley Powers
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Sep/0186.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Sep/0100.html
> [3] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13423#c17
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 22:21:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:43 UTC