RE: [editing] Is this the right list to discuss editing?

 From: Robin Berjon []
 Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:18 AM
 My recall is a bit rusty on that one, but I think that the situation was
 . WebApps is not chartered to publish this, so a CG was created.
 . But having the discussion on the CG list seemed like a bad idea since
 everyone is here, so the mailing list for discussion was decided to be

Thanks for history. It seems a fine place to me for the discussion. Just need to get interested parties aware that it is happening, working on that...

 I'd be happy to take over as editor for this spec, it's a feature
 I've wanted to have work right forever.

That would be fantastic! 

I hear you have a few other things on your plate, but having an active editor makes a world of difference and it is to be seen how much activity there is (judging from last year it is not scary, and I am not about to start a revolution).

 In order to make that happen (assuming that Aryeh agrees, or doesn't speak
 up), I propose the following:
 . Since I'm financed to work on HTML, transition this to an HTML extension
 spec (this probably only requires a few changes to the header).
 . The discussion can stay here (wherever people prefer that I'm already
 subscribed to - I really don't care).
 . The spec gets published through the HTML WG, since I believe it's
 actually viably in scope there already.
 All of the above assumes you're all happy with it, and the HTML people
 too. I reckon it could work though.

I have nothing to suggest on WG designation, it seems there is already enough qualified people involved to make a call. It deserves to be in somebody's charter I think, but I may be biased...

Looking forward to getting things done for more editable web))


Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 03:23:13 UTC