Re: Moving past last call for HTML5

Warning, significant snippage ahead...

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>
>>> (e.g. the allowance for the /> syntax in text/html...
> ...
> I don't consider this "horse trading" at all.

Excellent.

> Fair enough. I've removed 1.5.4.

Excellent.

> I've allowed <meta 
> charset> for the UTF-8 case in XML

Excellent.

>> My concern is that "The W3C technical report development process is 
>> designed to maximize consensus about the content of a technical report, 
>> to ensure high technical and editorial quality, to promote consistency 
>> among specifications, and to earn endorsement by W3C and the broader 
>> community"; it provides a number of explicit "outs" for FPWD, but 
>> declines to do so for LC.
>>
>> In the upcoming weeks, I plan to discuss this with my co-chair, W3C 
>> staff, and W3C management to see home much wiggle room there is in the 
>> definition of this term.  I should have an answer by the time we meet 
>> next month.
> 
> What do you think we need wiggle room or an "out" for? I wouldn't want to 
> proceed to LC even this year if there were areas where the working group 
> knew there was something that should change further before going to CR.

I strongly agree with the last sentence.

I believe that Rob has done everybody a great service by identifying the 
sections that he feels are not quite ready for standardization by this 
working group at this time.  Hopefully I can get others to do likewise 
by this spring.  Then we will have a good idea of what either needs to 
be fixed or cut.

If we have [rough|substantial|sufficient] consensus, there is no need 
for an "out".

>> It now occurs to me that if you were willing to provide a similar amount 
>> of input weekly (say, on Monday) on the items that appear on 
>> <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda> with a due date within the 
>> next 11 days (i.e., covering both the immediate call and the next), that 
>> would be most helpful.
> 
> That should be possible, yes.

Excellent.

>>> I really can't prioritise editorial stuff over issues with actual 
>>> normative requirements, sorry. People are implementing the spec, and 
>>> shipping it, and if we don't fix the spec when they mention problems 
>>> we might find ourselves forced into things we don't like.
>> I acknowledge that you are unwilling or unable to do so.
> 
> I'm in the unexpected position right now of having no urgent feedback, 
> having dealt with the pending urgent feedback this weekend. Now would be 
> an excellent and rare time for us to deal with issues that you think would 
> help but that I normally would not consider a high priority. Are there any 
> others beyond the two issues mentioned above that I've now dealt with, 
> and the summary="" issue, which I will deal with tomorrow?

Summary next, then profile.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Monday, 23 February 2009 13:25:56 UTC