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

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On 10/22/2012 04:49 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 12, 2012 4:25 AM, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/11/2012 12:02 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I object to taking an Extension Specification to FPWD simply when a WG
>>>>>> participant offers a draft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We have never done that.  We have always done a call for consensus
>>>>> prior
>>>>> to publishing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem with making FPWD a checkpoint for "will receive HTML
>>>> branding" is that a draft can change dramatically after that. It
>>>> basically means that if a draft at some point receives the HTML stamp,
>>>> it will then carry that recognition no matter what changes are made to
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What's all this blarney about "HTML branding". Give it a break (i.e., go
>>> read the W3C Process Document, get a life, etc.).
>>>
>>
>> I don't particularly care for this part of your reply.
>>
>
> Nor do I.
>

point taken


> In the (now approved) plan, there is a section on modularity:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/**decision-policy/html5-2014-**
> plan.html#modularity<http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html#modularity>
>
> In this section, there is a subsection on "Extension specifications are
> first-class citizens".  It closes with the following sentence:
>
>    In addition, we will work to find ways to promote these extensions
>    as a part of a family of HTML5 specifications.
>

Thanks, I missed that.  As such, Jonas/Henri's comments are legitimate.
Having said that, given that the plan document is no more than an internal
(here's how the HTML WG will work) policy document, I see no reason to
explicitly exclude extension specifications from what the WG will
"promote", although perhaps "promote" is not the best word here.  How about
framing it in terms of "priority" instead of "promotion"?


>
> Jonas, and it seems Henri, are currently uncomfortable with this
> statement, despite the fact that in context "these extensions" refers to
> ones that are "vibrant", "active", "significant implementation traction",
> "community credibility", and "as having wide consensus".
>
> I would like to work through this.  As an example, Henri seemed to think
> that somehow we were changing to make this automatic ("I object to taking
> an Extension Specification to FPWD simply when a WG participant offers a
> draft.") -- something we never said nor implied that we were going to do.
>
> In the process, Henri made the suggestion "If there is to be promotion
> (which I don't see as a core activity for a Working Group), I think it
> would make more sense to promote things as being part of the Web Platform."
>  This suggestion is worth considering.
>

Agreed. Perhaps excising or transmuting "promotion" would serve.