- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 11:02:09 -0400
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
> What is now known as the "XHTML2 Working Group" has recently published > Proposed Edited Recommendations for various XHTML specifications [1]. As > usual, The Director should not have approved them for publication due to > obvious procedural, technical, and editorial deficiencies. > > That in itself is of course not too much of a problem, process require- > ments and quality standards can be overly demanding and with limited re- > sources, you might be unable to live up to them. To manage expectations, > and allow for corrective action, such problems have to be pointed out by > those encountering them. > > That is in fact required by the Process document. In order to enter PER > status, a Working Group has to enumerate any and all known substantive > issues the group failed to address in a particular revision [2]. Rightly > so, it allows groups to address important problems quickly, and others > to verify that the important problems are being addressed quickly. > > As one can find out in a couple of seconds clicking through the group's > issue tracking system [3] there are dozens of unresolved issues with the > documents in question and their dependencies as they fall in the group's > charter, none of which are being reported as unaddressed. Hello Bjoern, I'm going to look at the issues you raised and find out if indeed the W3C Process was not followed properly. As you mention, the decision to move forward with the PERs was based on the absence of substantive issues raised against the document, as reported by the Group (it is allowed to move to PER with substantive issues but those have to be reported). The Group did single out some of the changes when requesting the transition, such as DTD declaration made optional in XHTML 1.1. I certainly hope to see comments from the HTML Working Group about those documents as well. Independently of whether the documents followed the Process or not, we should also make sure they're useful for the Web community. Philippe
Received on Friday, 15 May 2009 15:02:23 UTC