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

[HTMLWG] Decision: Adopt "Plan 2014" with modifications and make some specific related decisions

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 05:17:36 -0400
Message-ID: <507D2630.9080903@intertwingly.net>
To: "public-html@w3.org (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>
CC: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On 10/08/2012 05:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Recently, the Chairs of the HTML Working Group proposed a plan to bring HTML5 to Recommendation by 2014. This plan was created in consultation with W3C Management and key leaders of the W3C Accessibility community. The plan has been discussed and the Chairs have revised it based on feedback. At this time, the Chairs propose to adopt this plan by consensus.
> Because the plan includes many specific aspects, we explicitly enumerate what the Working Group would be agreeing to in passing this Call for Consensus; and what matters will require separate future Working Group Decisions. Please carefully review what this CFC does and does not include before replying.
> If the HTML Working Group passes this Call for Consensus, then the Working Group shall:
> * Endorse sending the plan as a whole as input to the W3C to guide revisions to the HTML Working Group charter: <http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html>
> * Agree in principle to advance HTML5 to Candidate Recommendation without another Last Call (but this is not yet the actual CR resolution since that will require a specific draft).
> * Make a WG Decision to adopt Version 3 of the HTML Working Group Decision Policy: <http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v3.html>
>      (A summary of the changes is available here: <http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html#dp> and here <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0188.html>)
> * Make a WG Decision to adopt the Model CR Exit Criteria (Public Permissive version 3) as the CR exit criteria for HTML5 and the default CR exit criteria for other Working Group deliverables: <http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/public-permissive-exit-criteria.html>
> * Make WG Decisions to pursue each of HTML Working Group issues 30, 164, 185, 194, 195, 200, 203, and 206 as extension specifications, with the possibility of reintegration into HTML 5.0, 5.1, or 5.2 per the reintegration policy.
>      (Details on each of these issues can be found here: <http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html#issues>)
> * Agree in principle that extension specifications can be integrated in HTML 5.0 if they meet the CR exit criteria and have HTML WG consensus, in accordance with the reintegration policy outlined in Version 3 of the HTML Working Group Decision Policy
> * Make a WG Decision to amend to the HTML  Accessibility Task Force Work Statement to allow the Task Force to create extension specs for accessibility-related issues, as follows: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0016.html>
>     NOTE: to take effect, this amendment must also be approved by the Protocols & Formats Working Group, and the Task Force itself.
> * Include hgroup in the list of at-risk features for HTML5.
> * 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
> This Call for Consensus does not include any decisions beyond the points above, and in particular explicitly does *not* include any of the following, which will be separate future WG decisions:
> * Request transition of HTML 5.0 to Candidate Recommendation in Q4 2012 (to be decided once a CR draft is prepared).
> * Request publication of a First Public Working Draft for HTML 5.1 in Q4 2012 (to be decided once a draft is prepared).
> * Request publication of a First Public Working Draft for any extension specifications (to be decided when and if drafts are ready.)
> * Request any other future transitions for HTML 5.0, HTML 5.1, or any other specification that are proposed in the plan (all to be decided when and if the relevant drafts are available).
> * Adopt any further revisions to the HTML Accessibility Task Force Work Statement beyond the amendment above.
> * Adopt a full list of features at risk, beyond the specific inclusion of hgroup (to be decided once a complete list is available; the W3C Process requires the list of at-risk features to be finalized before CR).
> If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please respond by Monday, October 15th, 2012. Positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal.
> If your comment is an objection, please clearly state that. In accordance with the W3C Process, objections SHOULD cite substantive arguments and propose changes that would remove the objection.

At this time, we find that the chairs find that the Working Group has 
consensus on the above with the following modifications:

  * Explicitly leave HTML5/HTML5.0 naming in external output --
    including the draft itself -- initially up to editors discretion
    subject to WG review. We recommend keeping "5.0" in internal WG
    artifacts, such as bugzilla component and branch names, for clarity.

  * Honor request to substitute "substantive" for "technical" in the
    proposed amendment to the A11y Task Force statement.

  * Replace "Include hgroup in the list of at-risk features for HTML5"
    with "Include portions of hgroup other than its parsing behavior and
    default style in the list of at-risk features for HTML5. Anyone who
    wants to mark hgroup parsing or style as at-risk would have to
    justify those items separately."

  * State that the existing master branch will be used as the basis for
    HTML 5.1 and that text from the WHATWG and other sources may be
    incorporated whenever the content meets with W3C consensus.

The modifications are based on the following feedback:

  * suggestion
    rename HTML 5.0 to simply HTML 5
  * request
    substitute "substantive" for "technical"
  * multiple objections
    from Henri Sivonen

The specific disposition of the objections provided by Henri are as follows:

  * I object to taking an Extension Specification to FPWD simply when a
    WG participant offers a draft.
      o Plan does not require that, nor is that our intent.

  * I object to promoting Web Intents, HTML+RDFa or Encrypted Media
    Extensions [under the HTML5 brand]
      o Plan does not require that, any future efforts along these lines
        would require separate WG approval.

  * I object to deciding to publish such Extension Specifications in a
    way that portrays them as being on equal footing with for example
    the canvas API and fails to conspicuously portray them as dissenting
      o The plan does not explicitly require any specific portrayal of
        Extension Specifications. But it is unlikely that we would
        require Extension Specifications to be conspicuously portrayed
        as dissenting opinions at the Working Draft stage. The W3C
        Process imposes a filter of implementor buy-in, but it puts that
        filter around entry to and exit from CR, not at the Working
        Draft stage. The W3C Process explicitly states that Working
        Drafts do not necessarily represent Working Group consensus on
        their contents. Therefore, we do not believe we can add this
        type of requirement and remain consistent with the W3C Process.

  * I object to this if the resulting [a11y TF] Extension Specifications
    are portrayed as deliverables of the HTML WG.
      o While the plan does require that, the proposed states "both
        Working Groups must approve transitions such as First Public
        Working Draft or Last Call." Therefore, if HTML WG members wish
        to object to a specific Extension Specification being an HTML WG
        deliverable, they will have the opportunity to do so.

  * I object to treating the inclusion of the hgroup name in the parsing
    algorithm as being at risk
      o The original plan and CfC aren't sufficiently clear on this
        point.  Clarified.

  * I also object to treating the UA stylesheet rule hgroup { display:
    block; } as being at risk
      o The original plan and CfC aren't sufficiently clear on this
        point.  Clarified.

  * I object to the plan of being silent on what the master branch is.
      o While the plan is indeed silent on this matter, the proposed
        charter change
        replaces "actively pursue convergence" with "consider
        proposals".  Clarified.

- Sam Ruby

(on behalf of the HTML Working Group co-Chairs, Paul Cotton, Sam Ruby, and Maciej Stachowiak)
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 09:18:09 UTC

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