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

On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 18:14:38 +0200, <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.

Hi Marcos,

If there are no objections, then the +1's indeed don't matter. But if  
there is one or more, then having some measure of the overall consensus of  
the group is important.

It's why we've got the arrangement that except where progressing makes a  
significant difference, we do it automatically and allow for objection as  
the exception case. Moving to CR potentially binds members to patent  
commitments, which matters to some members as well as to many people "out  
there in the wild", and requires that we demonstrate agreement of the  
group.

So I'm sorry for the extra mail, but in this case I'm afraid it's part of  
running the W3C process. If everything goes smoothly, you can expect this  
for HTML twice more in the next year: once to move to Proposed  
Recommendation, and once to move 5.2 to First Public Working Draft.

cheers

Chaals

>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
  chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Thursday, 2 June 2016 16:35:40 UTC