- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:25:03 +0200
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- CC: public-respimg@w3.org
On 17/10/2013 16:28 , Marcos Caceres wrote: > The Editors of the <picture> spec been under pressure from the HTML > Working Group Chairs to take some action with regards to picture. We > can continue to move it forward along the recommendation track or we > can "end-of-life" it by publishing it as a Note. In light of the > src-n proposal, I'm inclined for us to publish it as a Note. The > rationale being that src-n does exactly the same things that > <picture> was doing, but overcomes the shortcomings with <picture> If you feel that <picture> has run its course, then by all means ship it as a Note (the use cases certainly will be). But there is no rush. With much respect for our esteemed HTML chairs, if you are currently in the middle of thinking about srcN, if there is still interest in <picture>, there is no need to make an immediate decision. I certainly wouldn't go with anything that looks final unless you're reasonably sure. If you allow me to lean back into my armchair and puff on my pipe, I'll give you some Process exegesis. A long, long time ago, W3C groups were pretty much all member-only (with a comments list for the community). The "Heartbeat Requirement", which states that drafts must be published at least every three months and is the reason why you are being asked to push <picture> along, was instated essentially as an Aulde School Living Standard policy. As most good ideas it can turn into a meaningless automatism after the reasons behind it have been forgotten. I think that it should be noted that given the availability and broad distribution of a public editors' draft, the Heartbeat Requirement becomes meaningless.* So at the end of the day, please don't frame this as "we need to take some action with regards to <picture>". Sure enough, if <picture> becomes an abandoned path that should be published far and wide to avoid confusion from people who will stumble over it. But the decision should be made on the merits of the case, and not because of a vestigial branch of Process. * Note that this does not mean zero snapshot. You still need at least three (FPWD, LC, REC) in order for the patent policy to be effective. Those cannot be eliminated. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 09:25:11 UTC