Re: HTML WG status report to Lyon AC meeting

Would the Working Group have the ability to decide to rename the spec from 5.1 to 6.0? It seems like this is a non-technical decision that we could choose to do by survey at some point.

My own preference: I would prefer to name it "HTML 6.0" if it ends up having enough new features to seem like a major upgrade, and "HTML 5.1" if it does not. So I'd prefer to defer the decision until later, when we know how much new material we have that actually sticks.

Regards,
Maciej

On Oct 31, 2012, at 10:12 PM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Silvia
> 
> Plan 2014 [1] which was approved by the HTML WG [2] specifically called out our current deliverable as HTML 5.0 and the next release to be delivered in 2016 as HTML 5.1.    Therefore this is how the deliverables will be identified in the upcoming WG Charter revision.
> 
> /paulc
> 
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html 
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0105.html 
> 
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:03 PM
> To: Paul Cotton; Philippe Le Hégaret
> Cc: public-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: HTML WG status report to Lyon AC meeting
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Thanks for sharing this on this. It's particularly helpful for those of us (like myself) that are not at TPAC.
> 
> I'd actually like to take this as the basis for a discussion about versioning numbers.
> 
> I've been thinking about the version number of the next version of HTML for a bit. While a number doesn't seem all that important, I believe it is actually a strategic decision and a big signal that we are sending to the world by picking that number.
> 
> Version number schemes are now well understood - so much so that there is a whole website dedicated to explaining what you should do:
> http://semver.org/ . While it focuses on software, there is one important message to take away: minor number changes indicate small additions/changes, major numbers indicate big new features & changes.
> 
> In the public eye, Web2.0 changed the world from static to dynamic Web pages [1] and HTML5 codified in technology all the things that people wanted to do in Web2.0 apps that were so hard to do with HTML4 and JavaScript alone.
> 
> It is not difficult to predict what HTML.next will be about: the list of extension specifications, the creation of a media subgroup, the work of the Web & TV WG - they are all pretty big indicators where the next big thing is happening. And it's also pretty clear that it won't all be ready for HTML5.0 yet.
> 
> Therefore, let me make a bold proposal. It'd like to suggest we name the next version HTML6 and one of its goals will be to take Video on the Web to its prime time.
> 
> Yes, there are other things happening, too - things like responsive Web design, security & privacy issues, and all the other things we've been working on for a long time (i18n, a11y, semantic Web). But I think the way the public will look at it, the next big step for the Web will be video - on every screen in every device delivered through the Web.
> 
> Do we want to deliver the next big thing for the Web under a minor version number change? I don't think so and I'd like to see a discussion about it here.
> 
> I think we should reserve the minor version number change to updating
> HTML5.0: we call the current CR HTML5.0 - what do we want to call it when we accept larger extension specs into it over the next months and before REC? I think giving us the option to change HTML5.0 to HTML5.1 for minor additions is a good one to keep.
> 
> In parallel we can start developing the next big thing for the Web under a proper new version number and it's not just a minor patch - it's a proper new thing. It deserves a proper new number - let's call it HTML6 and let's publish the FPWD as HTML6.0.
> 
> Regards,
> Silvia.
> 
> 
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Yesterday Maciej, Philippe, Mike Smith, Robin and I gave a report on 
>> the HTML WG status to the W3C AC meeting.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The report is also publically available at 
>> http://www.w3.org/2012/10/html5-update.pdf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please let us know if you have any comments or questions on this report.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> /paulc
>> 
>> HTML WG co-chair
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>> 
>> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>> 
>> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>> 
>> 
>

Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 09:10:11 UTC