- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:42:40 -0500
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
- Cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Hi Maciej and Mat, > It's a valid choice to put this before the group, Maciej, thank you for the verification. > but I would recommend moving > that bug to HTML.next, A few questions: Is there a timeline with milestones for HTML.next? Could adaptive images be mentioned in the charter as a deliverable? If I remember correctly, I think at one time Paul said that this proposal could be discussed as part of the charter discussion. > if the stakeholders are willing. Mat, which do you prefer? Keeping the bug in HTML5 or moving it to HTML.next? Best Regards, Laura On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 25, 2012, at 12:47 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: >>> Without commenting on the merits of this particular case, I agree with Ted's >>> comments that in general, we should hold off on adding HTML5 features. >> >> Why is that just a general comment? I thought HTML5 was in feature >> freeze except for adding accessibility features to complement other >> features that went in before the freeze, but it appears that >> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16481 is unresolved, so >> maybe the feature freeze isn't in effect yet. What's the status of the >> feature freeze? > > We do intend to enable that policy in the near future; it has been moot during the editorial interregnum. The more relevant policy change is this: <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16674>. As far as we're concerned, we're already open to "too late for new features" as an argument. A proposed new feature would have to meet a very high standard to be included at this point. An example of a reason that may be sufficiently compelling would be missing accessibility functionality for features that are new to HTML5. > > That being said, the final decision always belongs to the WG. We can't categorically rule out that the WG would choose to accept a new feature by consensus, even if this delays the spec. But I at least would strongly encourage targeting new feature proposals for HTML.next. > >> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18384 has been filed in >> the HTML5 component. I think that's confusing in the light of the >> attempt to get to a feature freeze. > > It's a valid choice to put this before the group, but I would recommend moving that bug to HTML.next, if the stakeholders are willing. > > Regards, > Maciej > > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2012 19:43:09 UTC