Re: Documents not in scope for HTML-WG

Larry Masinter wrote:
> Thanks for the history! 
> 
>> The current state, as I understand it, is that the WG has concurrence by 
>> the Director for over two years to include Immediate Mode Graphics and 
>> canvas element.
> 
> I think your opinion is clear, and I disagree
> whatever discussions that took place then
> (whether it was a 'decision') covered the 
> current question, which is to FPWD Canvas 2D
> as a separate document in this working group.
> 
> As a courtesy to you, I've included you in the
> conversation, but I don't expect to convince
> you.

I will confess that I don't fully understand your position then.  As I 
see it, a topic is either in scope or out of scope for a given working 
group.  Splitting a topic that is in scope for a given working group out 
into a separate document doesn't make the topic potentially suddenly out 
of scope.

The three current chairs, as well as PLH, had this specific discussion 
with T-BL, and he not only didn't have any concern over splitting the 
spec up, he positively encouraged us.

> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net] 
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 9:56 AM
> To: Larry Masinter
> Cc: Anne van Kesteren; Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org); Philippe Le Hegaret; www-archive; Maciej Stachowiak; Paul Cotton; Manu Sporny
> Subject: Re: Documents not in scope for HTML-WG
> 
> Larry Masinter wrote:
>> I know the working group decided that two years ago! 
>>
>> However, Working Groups do not have the authority to change
>> their charter. The charter is established by the director
>> after discussion by the AC. The AC discussion explicitly
>> removed 2D graphics from the charter, if you look at the
>> record, there was an earlier draft of the charter with
>> 2D graphics that was explicitly removed.
>>
>> So, it's fine. I'm not bringing this up in the working
>> group because the working group decision was clear.
>>
>> I think it would be fine to update the charter to include
>> 2D Context as actually within scope if that's what the
>> working group proposes and the Director and AC agree.
> 
> That, too, was discussed.  See issue 38:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/38?changelog 
> 
>> I wouldn't object to that.
>>
>> But the W3C AC actually discusses charters, comes to
>> agreement about scope, and the discussions about charter
>> scope are intense, careful, and the wordings chosen 
>> carefully. Companies decide whether or not to join a
>> working group and who to send as representatives based
>> on what the charter says. 
>>
>> So my point stands: whether or not the working group
>> decided to include this material, it is out of scope
>> for the current charter.
> 
> The current state, as I understand it, is that the WG has concurrence by 
> the Director for over two years to include Immediate Mode Graphics and 
> canvas element.
> 
>> Larry
>> --
>> http://larry.masinter.net
> 
> - Sam Ruby
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@opera.com] 
>> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:29 AM
>> To: Larry Masinter; Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org); Philippe Le Hegaret
>> Cc: www-archive; Maciej Stachowiak; Paul Cotton; Sam Ruby; Manu Sporny
>> Subject: Re: Documents not in scope for HTML-WG
>>
>> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:16:43 +0100, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> None of RDFa, Microdata  or 2D Context, are in scope for the current  
>>> HTML working group charter.
>> Well, at least for 2D Context the Working Group decided over two years ago  
>> that it is:
>>
>>    http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/15
>>
>>
> 
>

Received on Friday, 5 February 2010 21:52:21 UTC