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

Re: Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:38:54 -0400
Message-ID: <5062CD2E.5080903@intertwingly.net>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "w3c-wai-pf@w3.org" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> (janina@rednote.net)" <janina@rednote.net>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org> (jbrewer@w3.org)" <jbrewer@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
On 09/26/2012 04:47 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> Hi Sam,
> a few comments/questions
> Is it intended moving forward that any potential additions to HTML are
> first developed in the form of an extension spec?

Encouraged but not required.  I'll simply add that this will be strongly 
encouraged for controversial features.

> There appears to be no method for the WG to obsolete features from
> HTML other than due to lack of implementation. Is this the case?

Not at all.  You have provided two counter examples to this thesis:


One or both could be integrated during CR:


Of course, doing so will require us to return to Last Call after CR, but 
that is already part of the proposed plan.

> Can extension specs be developed that are not intended to be
> potentially folded into the spec prior to 5.0 REC? For example the
> maincontent element [1]


> regards
> SteveF

- Sam Ruby

> [1] http://www.html5accessibility.com/tests/maincontent.html
> On 25 September 2012 23:15, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> Based on feedback received to date, we have revised the 2014 plan:
>>    http://intertwingly.net/tmp/html5-2014-plan.html
>> As a part of this update, we also have updated the Draft Decision Policy and
>> the Model Public Permissive CR Exit Criteria:
>>    http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v3.html
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/public-permissive-exit-criteria.html
>> We have also started a page which we will use to capture a list of features
>> at risk:
>>    http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/HTML5.0AtRiskFeatures
>> At the present time these documents are only intended to be snapshots
>> demonstrating forward progress.  After a brief period of discussion the plan
>> itself will be updated to reflect these changes:
>>    http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html
>> Meanwhile feel free to compare the draft 2014 plan to the original.  A list
>> of significant changes and change bars appear in the updated 2014 plan
>> itself.
>> The intent is to issue a Call for Consensus on this plan no earlier than
>> early next week.  We request that everyone let us know ASAP if you see
>> anything in this plan that you are likely to object to during the Call For
>> Consensus,
>> - Sam Ruby
>> On behalf of:
>> Sam, Maciej, Paul, Janina, Philippe and Judy
>> HTML Working Group Chairs, Protocols and Formats WG Chair & The W3C Team
>> ----------
>> On 09/19/2012 04:33 PM, Paul Cotton wrote:
>>> The HTML Working Group has made much progress on HTML5 and related
>>> specifications. The HTML Working Group Chairs and the Protocols and Formats
>>> WG Chair have been asked by the W3C Team to provide a credible plan to get
>>> HTML5 to Recommendation status by 2014. Challenges remain in achieving this
>>> goal. We sought to produce a plan that achieves this date and that has
>>> minimal risk of delays from unexpected events.
>>> We'd like to now propose our draft plan [1] to the HTML Working Group for
>>> consideration. Here are the key points of our plan:
>>>          - Revise the draft HTML WG charter to indicate an HTML 5.0
>>> Recommendation in 2014Q4 and an HTML 5.1 Recommendation in 2016Q4.
>>>          - Use Candidate Recommendation exit criteria to focus testing
>>> where it is advisable (e.g. new features), without wasting time on testing
>>> where it is inappropriate (such as when interoperability is already proven
>>> on the Web).
>>>          - Use modularity to manage the size and complexity of the
>>> specifications while reducing social conflict within a constrained timeline:
>>>                  - Gain agreement that the remaining open issues can
>>> proceed via extension specifications at first. Provide an opportunity to
>>> merge extension specifications back into the baseline spec upon getting WG
>>> consensus and after the extension specifications meet their Candidate
>>> Recommendation exit criteria.
>>>                  -Welcome the option of extension specifications that don't
>>> merge back at all and instead proceed at different paces and possibly even
>>> with different Candidate Recommendation exit criteria.
>>> We encourage discussion of this draft plan in response to this email.  We
>>> will also add this item to the respective agendas of the next meetings of
>>> the HTML WG, the Accessibility Task Force and the PF WG.
>>> /paulc
>>> On behalf of:
>>> Sam, Maciej, Paul, Janina, Philippe and Judy
>>> HTML Working Group Chairs, Protocols and Formats WG Chair & The W3C Team
>>> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html
>>> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>>> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>>> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 09:39:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:27 UTC