RE: Proposed split of the HTML specification

> Some questions to consider, however:
> Q1: Assuming the split is fine, should we start publishing split parts now or is it better to wait for the group's reorganisation?
> Q2: Should the first batch of documents be published as one big set? It has big advantages when it comes to linking; but it's a solid chunk of work.
> Q3: I'm assuming we'd put all documents under Process 2014 and auto-publication?
> Q4: The split documents are currently all listed as being without editors. 
>Would it be acceptable to take the current list of editors as "Former Editors"? Any takers for specific documents?

I have some additional questions to add to Robin's questions.

Q5:  Robin's proposed split [2] appears to apply to only HTML 5.1,  will it also apply to HTML 5.0 for maintenance purposes?

Q6. If the answer to Q5 is No, then should initial changes to the HTML 5.1 modules be limited to maintenance fixes and outstanding bugs [1] so that we can publish HTML 5.1 ASAP as a maintenance release of HTML 5.0?

Q7.  If the answer to Q5 is Yes, then how will the various editorial and bug fixes extracted from the WHATWG upstream version that have been added to HTML 5.1 since it was first published in Nov 2014 be "back-ported" to the split out parts of HTML 5.0?

Q8.  Are we going to unhook the production of HTML 5.1 from the upstream WHATWG version?  If so when?

/paulc

[1] http://github.adrianba.net/webstandards/HTML5-bugs.htm 
[2] https://github.com/darobin/breakup 

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 5:05 AM
To: chaals@yandex-team.ru; Steve Faulkner; Sam Ruby
Cc: Travis Leithead; HTML WG (public-html@w3.org); Adrian Bateman; Erika Doyle Navara; Paul Cotton
Subject: Re: Proposed split of the HTML specification

On 24/06/2015 00:55 , chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> More to the point, I'm happy with what we have now, and wondering what 
> the roadmap is for settling these down so we can propose more detailed 
> changes without worrying that they'll get washed away by another 
> organisational shuffle.
> Does it make sense to have a "last call for changes" and a CfC to go 
> forward with this structure now, or do people need more time…?

There would certainly be value in moving ahead; people are asking where and how they can make changes and while the split is in the air there isn't really a good answer to that question. No split has to be forever, documents can merge or split further later in their lifetimes.

Some questions to consider, however:

Assuming the split is fine, should we start publishing split parts now or is it better to wait for the group's reorganisation?

Should the first batch of documents be published as one big set? It has big advantages when it comes to linking; but it's a solid chunk of work.

I'm assuming we'd put all documents under Process 2014 and auto-publication?

The split documents are currently all listed as being without editors. 
Would it be acceptable to take the current list of editors as "Former Editors"? Any takers for specific documents?

--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 14:25:19 UTC