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

> On Jun 3, 2016, at 01:35, Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
> 
> 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.

I believe Marcos is raising a valid concern here - while I'm not in full agreement that only objections
matter, most of the people get enough mail already and it does make it easy to get important feedback
lost in a chain of +1 mails. (and when it piles up, it's just something you zip through and mark as read,
now repeat time spent doing that multiplied by subscribers of this ML...)

Having a platform where the chairs/staff can get a quick overview of the consensus stats sounds a
like it could save time in the even anyone needs the consensus statistics. (As mentioned in a earlier
reply, WBS could work, even if it's not a great tool per se.)

Sangwhan

>>> 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