Re: Updating of editors version of HTML5 spec

Hi Jonas,

you wrote:

"It feels very unfortunate that these days the majority of emails in
this list are regarding process and not regarding the technical
discussions of what's in the HTML5 spec."

I would suggest its the editors regular attempts at the monkeywrenching of
the html wg process  is the reason for such emails.

I would also suggest that the reason why technical issues are not
disucussed on the html wg list is that the majority of the activity occurs
on the bugs. That appears to be by design. I would very much like to see
the technical discussion occuring in the bugs moved back to the HTML list
as I would find it much easier to keep track of what was being discussed.


>Is anyone really doubting that the editor will get to the change?

Yes i am seriously doubting it, thats why i asked. No changes have occured
to the canvas 2d context spec since the revert was made on it, I do not
think it is a situation that should be repeated with the HTML5 spec and if
it does occur I want to see it nipped in the bud before it causes problems.

I am perfectly happy with having the thread moved to www.archive, but I
reserve the right to initiate such discussion on the html wg list.


best regards
Stevef


On 11 November 2011 09:41, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> Do we really need so many of these types of emails to the group? This
> happens more often than not when the WG makes a decision regarding an
> edit to the specification. First there's a lot of emails regarding
> that the edit isn't happening fast enough. Then there's a lot of
> emails regarding that the edit is done manually by someone other than
> the editor, then finally there are emails regarding that things are in
> disarray since there was a manual edit done by someone other than the
> editor.
>
> Is anyone really doubting that the editor will get to the change?
>
> If we necessarily need to have these emails go out, can they go to
> www-archive or some other list other than the HTML WG list which is
> mainly intended for technical discussions regarding HTML (or so I
> thought)?
>
> It feels very unfortunate that these days the majority of emails in
> this list are regarding process and not regarding the technical
> discussions of what's in the HTML5 spec.
>
> / Jonas
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Steve Faulkner
> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Chairs,
> >
> > I noticed that there have been several new revisions[1] since the revert
> > occurred yesterday, as well as those revisions overwritten as a side
> effect
> > of the way the revert was actioned.
> >
> >
> > These Revisions are not currently reflected in the HTML5 editors draft
> [2].
> > Having access to an up to date version of the W3C HTML5 specification is
> a
> > fundamental requirement for review and oversight.
> >
> > Can you inform the working group as to when regular updates to the spec
> will
> > resume?
> >
> >
> > [1] http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker 6818 - 6824
> > [2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/
> >
> > Best regards
> > Stevef
> >
> > --
> > with regards
> >
> > Steve Faulkner
> > Technical Director - TPG
> >
> > www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
> > www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
> > HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
> > dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
> > Web Accessibility Toolbar -
> > www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
> >
> >
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html