W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Fw: Issue-4/Action-108 html-versioning - suggest closing

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:20:13 -0400
To: Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF9E654508.4A7CAB78-ON8525761C.005304B9-8525761C.00543FE3@us.ibm.com>

Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM wrote on 08/24/2009 10:48:16 AM:
> I am forwarding this for the benefit of those who read www-tag but
> not public-html.  I see Larry raising two issues:
> 1. Versioning in particular
> 2. "There are other TAG items also relating to reviewing HTML."
> Larry writes:
> > I suggest you, Sam, coordinate directly with Noah Mendelsohn as TAG
> > chair to establish scope and coordination.
> To level set with the TAG community before interacting with Sam on
> these issues, my view of the current Tag status is:  we are indeed
> discussing issues relating to versioning, we have indeed discussed a
> range of other issues that may relate to HTML, and we are attempting
> a more careful reading of the HTML 5 draft.
> At this point, I don't >think< the TAG has agreed on any specific
> points that we want to communicate to the HTML WG (TAG members,
> please correct me if I'm wrong.)  Obviously, I will be pleased to
> coordinate with Sam as Larry suggests, both to convey any
> conclusions the TAG might reach, to see if there are other ways we
> might be helpful, and also to better understand scheduling
> constraints on the HTML side (Sam and I did chat briefly by phone
> last week, so I think I have an informal understanding of where things

Ian Hickson is intending to be ready for Last Call in October.  I'm a bit
less optimistic as I see issues that are likely to take until December to
resolve, but those are being actively worked, and perhaps they could be
pulled in.  Either way, we are talking 4Q09.

I'd like to note that Issue 4 has been open since 2007.  Action 108 itself
has been open for over six months.

The questions I would like to pose are: (1) is there a possibility for this
to come in by last call?  And (2) do we need to move last call?

>From my perspective, I think it would be disingenuous to proceed to last
call with this issue still open and with the expectation that a serious
proposal is imminent that will merit serious consideration and may require
substantial rework.

> I will include discussion of Larry's note in the agenda for this
> week's TAG teleconference.

Much appreciated!  From my perspective, I'd like to see this issue resolved
to everyone's satisfaction, prior to Last Call, and without further delay.

> Thank you.
> Noah

- Sam Ruby

> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------

> ----- Forwarded by Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM on 08/24/2009 10:26 AM
> Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
> 08/23/2009 07:47 PM
>  To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
>  cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com"
> <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
>  Subject: RE: Issue-4/Action-108 html-versioning - suggest closing
> Sam,
> The TAG activity on Versioning was documented in
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/sum07.html
> " A framework for evaluation of language versioning mechanisms,
> with particular focus on Version indicators such as DOCTYPE
>  declarations."
> which is noted as TAG issue 41:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/41
> There are other TAG items also relating to reviewing HTML.
> I suggest you, Sam, coordinate directly with Noah
> Mendelsohn as TAG chair to establish scope and coordination.
> Thanks!
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 1:21 AM
> To: Larry Masinter
> Subject: Issue-4/Action-108 html-versioning - suggest closing
> Larry, since April you have been reporting back on the TAG's work on
> versioning wrt HTML.  At this time, I would like to close that action
> item.  If you believe that this work will result in a tangible set of
> requirements and/or proposal, I would like to open a separate action
> item on that, and would like to know what target date you would like for
> that action.
> - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 15:21:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:30 UTC