Re: HTML WG status report to Lyon AC meeting

That is indeed another approach to take - though it implies that we take up
the 5.1 name space right now.

>From what I've seen of TPAC, this wasn't a topic that was discussed.
Neither was there much discussion on list here. So I assume that the
decision to move forward with 5.1 now seems fairly cemented.

I am glad, though, to hear that we still have the chance to re-badge at a
later stage if we so decide. I'm indeed hopeful that we will continue to
think big and innovate for the next HTML version.

Regards,
Silvia.



On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:

>
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>