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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:51:42 -0700
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <12B8B7C7-073D-4667-939E-84213085D91A@apple.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>

On Oct 19, 2012, at 12:47 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> A better solution is in my opinion for extension specs to carry their
> own weight without relying on branding. This can be accomplished by
> simply being careful about what we choose to put in the status section
> of the drafts. So for example clearly stating that it's not a HTML WG
> draft. And stating that though its published by W3C as a extension to
> HTML, it's not actually part of HTML and might never be so.

I think we can be clear that extension specs are not part of the HTML spec. But extension specs published by the HTML WG would be HTML WG drafts by definition, so I am not sure why you would want to say otherwise. Of course extension specs produced in other WGs would not be. But I would not expect those to be labeled as HTML WG drafts. Are you saying that all future extensions to HTML should be developed by groups outside the HTML WG?

Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 15:52:26 UTC

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