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

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

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:46:17 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2=1k3+OgKiUsTE1JGWR71zvQhpi6AqsaAARmC6n=O644Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 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

I would also prefer we called the spec HTML 5.0, because HTML5 stands
for the whole idea of new Web technologies. It would be preferable if
the HTML spec - which is just a part of that idea - had a more
explicitly identifiable name. It also indicates that there will be a
5.1 etc, which signals that this time around we won't get stuck with
an aging spec.

Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 21:47:06 UTC

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