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

Fwd: Re: [HTMLWG] CfC: Adopt "Plan 2014" and make some specific related decisions

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:23:31 -0400
Message-ID: <50735263.9020802@intertwingly.net>
To: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Forgot to copy public-html...

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [HTMLWG] CfC: Adopt "Plan 2014" and make some specific 
related decisions
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:22:55 -0400
From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org

On 10/08/2012 06:00 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>> * Agree to rename the "HTML5 spec" component to "HTML spec", and only bring back specific bugs that address interoperability issues or can be addressed by a non-substantive change to the specification
> What is the reasoning behind this change?
> I don't think that this is actually helpful, because users have to
> register a bug against either the spec that we are taking to REC or
> HTML.next. Since the spec that we are taking to REC is HTML 5.0, I
> would prefer we keep this component as "HTML5" - it is far less
> confusing. Alternatively, "HTML5-CR" or "HTML5-LC" or "HTML5.0" would
> make sense to me, too.

First, I'll note that this closely matches what the plan says (first
sub-bullet of the first major bullet):


But to answer your question, I'll describe this in terms of how one
commonly uses version control systems like git.  Generally, there is a
generic "master" branch on which work continues.  Periodically there is
a new branch created in which work is stabilized.

In this case, what we are proposing to do is to make it clear that
"master" is ongoing and that the new branch is for CR activities leading
up to a 5.0 REC.

During CR, we are intentionally locking things down.  The only changes
we should be expecting are ones that are non-substantial and ones that
address interop issues.  Additionally, we are proposing to impose
additional process requirements for changes:


- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 8 October 2012 22:23:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:28 UTC