Re: Next last call publication & question on todays meeting

Felix, I do not have an issue with your proposed publishing date,* provided
that all spec and schema changes discussed today are implemented by that

However, I do not agree that introducing extensibility and changing schema
is not a substantive change. Anyway, I would hardly call it editorial.
Extensibility in this sense has not been discussed before and we do not
have a stable spec change to reflect it by now.
My opinion is that it is better to lose one week now than many weeks later
on if the change is pushed into the second last call.


Dr. David Filip
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
*cellphone: +353-86-0222-158*
facsimile: +353-6120-2734

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Felix Sasaki <> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I read in today's raw meeting minutes
> "skipping topic: Consensus to publish Last Call"
> Why is that? Because of the extension change which is not normative? If
> that's the case I propose to do the following:
> - If there is no disagreement on action-527
> lt/2013May/0139.html<>
> by Friday EOB
> and no other substantive issue comes up, I will prepare the publication,
> to be done Tuesday 21 May.
> Wrt to the HTML reference for "elements within text": changing just the
> pointers to groups of elements in HTML5 (e.g. "phrasing content") and list
> elements explicitly (e.g. "script") won't warrant a last call delay. Of
> course, if the HTML references are resolved by Monday EOB next week (that
> would be needed for publication on Tuesday), that's even better.
> If you disagree with this approach and esp. if you see other issues,
> please state that in this thread asap.
> Thanks,
> Felix

Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 21:24:12 UTC