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

± From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@w3.org]
± Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:18 AM
± 
± My recall is a bit rusty on that one, but I think that the situation was
± that:
± 
± . 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
± public-webapps.

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))

Alex

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