W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2016

Re: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 11:28:35 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKdCpxyyS3-bFehEVX8-ET68tVk2_OER-RzeHxk03BaCZLPOZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: marcos@marcosc.com
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Marcos,

While it may feel spammy to you, this is a long-standing part of the W3C
Consensus process, and generally speaking all CfCs include the following:

"Positive responses are preferred and encouraged, silence will be
considered as assent."



On the surface, and in principle, I disagree that the "only thing that
matters is objections", as visible signs of strong support matter too.
Receiving a handful of +1 emails is to me an acceptable process (unless
this group chooses to use another means of confirming consensus: perhaps
WBS surveys or similar?)

JF






On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:14 AM, <marcos@marcosc.com> wrote:

> Can we please kindly stop the +1s spam? It greatly diminishes the value of
> this mailing list.
>
> For the purpose of progressing a spec, the only thing that matters is
> objections.
>
> > On 3 Jun 2016, at 12:36 AM, Mona Rekhi <mona.rekhi@ssbbartgroup.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Mona Rekhi
> > SSB BART Group
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Léonie Watson [mailto:tink@tink.uk]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 8:48 AM
> > To: 'public-webapps WG' <public-webapps@w3.org>
> > Subject: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)
> >
> > Hello WP,
> >
> > This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current
> HTML Working Draft (WD) as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). It has been
> posted to public-webapps@w3.org as the official email for this WG.
> >
> > Please reply to this thread on public-webapps@w3.org  no later than end
> of day on 10 June. Positive responses are preferred and encouraged, silence
> will be considered as assent.
> >
> > The current HTML5.1 WD [1] improves upon HTML5. It includes updates that
> make it more reliable, more readable and understandable, and a better match
> for reality. Substantial changes between HTML5 and HTML5.1 can be found in
> the spec [2].
> >
> > When a specification moves to CR it triggers a Call For Exclusions, per
> section 4 of the W3C Patent Policy [3]. No substantive additions can be
> made to a specification in CR without starting a new Call for Exclusions,
> so we will put HTML5.1 into "feature freeze". It is possible to make
> editorial updates as necessary, and features marked "At Risk" may be
> removed if found not to be interoperable.
> >
> > The following features are considered "at risk". If we cannot identify
> at least two shipping implementations, they will be marked "at risk" in the
> CR and may be removed from the Proposed Recommendation.
> >
> > keygen element. [issue 43]
> > label as a reassociatable element [issue 109] Fixing
> requestAnimationFrame to 60Hz, not implementation-defined [issues
> 159/375/422] registerContentHandler [Issue 233] inputmode attribute of the
> input element [issue 269] autofill of form elements [issue 372] menu,
> menuitem and context menus. [issue 373] dialog element [issue 427] Text
> tracks exposing in-band metadata best practices [Issue 461] datetime and
> datatime-local states of the input element [Issue 462]
> >
> > Please share implementation details for any of these features on Github.
> To mark other features "at risk", please identify them by 10th June
> (ideally by filing an issue and providing a test case).
> >
> > At the same time we move HTML5.1 into CR, we plan to continue updating
> the Editor's Draft, and in the next few weeks we expect to post a Call for
> Consensus to publish it as the First Public Working Draft of HTML5.2, so
> improving HTML will continue without a pause. It also means that changes
> that didn't make it into
> > HTML5.1 will not have long to wait before being incorporated into the
> specification.
> >
> > Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team, and HTML editors.
> > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/
> > [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/changes.html#changes
> > [3] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exclusion
> >
> > [issue 43] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/43
> > [issue 109] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/109
> > [issues 159/375/422] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/159 and links
> [issue 233] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/233
> > [issue 269] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/269
> > [issue 372] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/372
> > [issue 373] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/373
> > [issue 427] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/427
> > [Issue 461] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/461
> > [Issue 462] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/462
> >
> >
> > --
> > @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2016 16:29:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:39 UTC