W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2012

Re: CfC: Request transition of HTML5 to Candidate Recommendation

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:58:47 -0500
Message-ID: <50B34B67.9040406@intertwingly.net>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 11/26/2012 02:13 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2012, at 8:38 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
> wrote:
>> On 11/25/2012 10:07 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> On Nov 25, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>> On 11/25/2012 06:18 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>>>> Instead, the specification takes on a bizarre "Us vs The
>>>>> Man" attitude
>>>> The specification has been developed in the open over a long
>>>> period of time.  The current editors were chosen as they were
>>>> felt to be people that could respond reasonably to requests for
>>>> change.
>>> AFAIK, the current editors have not edited that section. They are
>>> free to respond reasonably to the requests I just made.
>>>>> If the WG decides to advance the HTML5 specification to CR
>>>>> without fixing these errors and inconsistencies, then please
>>>>> consider this a formal objection.
>>>> Typically, the way this process starts is with one or more bug
>>>> reports:
>>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v3.html#basic
Some of the issues you describe appear to be editorial in nature. 
Presumably those could be addressed during CR?
>>>> Others appear to be more substantive.  Ideally, the reporting
>>>> of such would propose changes[1] that (if adopted) would remove
>>>> the need for a Formal Objection.
>>> We already have
>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/56
>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/81
>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7687
>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8207
>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8264
>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8906
>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9035
>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11380
>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12543
>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13721
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0585.html
>>For completeness, I will add:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0404.html
>>> I proposed changes that would remove the need for a formal
>>> objection.  While the bug reporting system is useful and has
>>> been used to file similar issues in the past, which were later
>>> closed without action by the editor, I don't believe that
>>> bugzilla entries are necessary for an objection to advancing to
>>> CR.  The CfC is subject to the official W3C process and I believe
>>> that my email is sufficient for that process, including enough
>>> technical detail for the editors to resolve the objection if so
>>> desired.  I don't have the time or energy right now to add any
>>> more, at least not until some of the existing ones are addressed.
>>> CR is supposed to imply that such known issues have been
>>> resolved.
>>> I believe the editors are fully capable of understanding my
>>> objection without more process.  If necessary, I can help in the
>>> production of a git patch next month if the discussion warrants
>>> it.
>> From my perspective, the status in March of 2011 -- after literally
>> years of discussion -- was that we were waiting for somebody to
>> turn your proposed text to a change proposal; and that you believed
>> that the issue should remain open until there was a proposal that
>> satisfied the issue.
>> The status as of late November 2012 is that we still don't have a
>> proposal.
>> This is not a matter of people not being capable of understanding
>> your objection.  This is a matter of nobody putting forward a
>> proposal that satisfies your objection.
> It is the responsibility of the editors to do so if you wish the
> formal objection to be resolved. This notion that the reporter of
> errors in the spec needs to produce an exact diff is something you
> created that is not part of the W3C process. The message I wrote is
> sufficient to make the changes.

Nobody said it had to be the reporter who proposed the change.

The HTML WG currently has 305 participants from 82 organizations, as 
well as 211 Invited Experts.  After literally years of discussion, 
absolutely none of them has produced a proposal that would resolve your 

>> Others are welcome to chime in, but given what I see, my
>> recommendation is that we don't hold up 5.0 CR waiting for
>> something that has yet to happen.
> I did not ask anyone to wait. You did. The purpose of a CR is to
> present a specification that is technically complete. Your focus
> should be on producing such a spec, not grasping for reasons why I
> have to do the work for five intelligent editors.
>> Should something better comes in during CR and we decide to adopt
>> it, then we have already built in a plan for another Last Call[1].
>> Should the proposal come in after CR, the improvements can be
>> folded into 5.1.
> As I said, I object to advancing to CR without resolving the issue.
> The current spec does not qualify for advancement.  If you want to
> call the spec ready for CR, then have the editors resolve the
> objection or prepare your case for why the Director should disregard
> it.

Of the bugs that you listed, one is VERIFIED, one is REOPENED, and the 
rest are RESOLVED.

I'll reassign the REOPENED one to Robin.

> If I happen to find the time to prepare a set of patches to the git
> source, I will, but I have other specs for which I am the responsible
> editor and none of them allow the editors to sit idle while waiting
> for complete diffs of every suggestion.
> ....Roy

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 26 November 2012 10:59:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:58 UTC