Re: HTML WG issues scheduled to close Dec 17 comments

On Dec 12, 2009, at 10:20 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:

> Reviewing http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html
>
> ISSUE-27: scheduled to close without prejudice if no change proposal  
> is produced by Dec 17.
> I think if there is a volunteer to write a change proposal, and the  
> volunteer doesn’t produce the change proposal by the deadline, then  
> if the action is “Will close without prejudice if Change Proposal is  
> not complete by the deadline.” should allow someone else to write a  
> change proposal, even if no “new information” is presented (as might  
> be required otherwise.) In this case, I wouldn’t want to spend time  
> trying to write a change proposal since it looks likely that Paul  
> will complete his action in time, but I care about the issue enough  
> to try to submit a change proposal if Paul doesn’t manage to hit the  
> deadline.

For issues that are closed without prejudice because they time out in  
this way, here's the situation. The formal rule is that the issue can  
only be re-raised with permission of the chairs. Informally, we will  
allow these kinds of issues to be re-raised if someone comes forward  
with a completed Change Proposal. The Chairs will also grant  
reasonable deadline extensions where there is a volunteer identified,  
and if Paul needs one it will very likely be granted.

> ISSUE-59 and ISSUE-67: Issue 59 (and Issue-67 which is related).  
> These were raised in a  joint HTML / TAG session. (I wasn’t there; I  
> wasn’t part of  the TAG until well after this meeting).  However,  I  
> think the TAG is scheduling a review of the various language  
> reference documents soon, but I think closing these issues should be  
> coordinated with the TAG discussions.  Please coordinate with the  
> TAG chair before closing these issues.

I'm assuming based on TPAC discussion that the TAG has no further  
interest in keeping these issues open as Last Call blockers, but I'd  
be happy to give the TAG a heads-up in case they feel otherwise.

>  ISSUE-73: I think this issue depends on the resolution of ISSUE-76:  
> (re)moving microdata from the HTML5 spec should also (re)move the  
> predefined vocabularies for microdata. Please delay closing of  
> ISSUE-73 until after ISSUE-76 is decided and the necessity of these  
> vocabularies is clearer (that was one of my comments on the ‘split  
> microdata’ change proposal, it should also remove the predefined  
> vocabularies.)

The predefined vocabularies are already removed. Please check <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/ 
 > - you should find all traces gone. Drafts of the split-out  
vocabulary specs are here:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/mdvcard/
http://dev.w3.org/html5/mdvevent/
http://dev.w3.org/html5/mdwork/

Because the split has been done for some time with no apparent  
controversy, we're proposing closing the issue.

Working Group members are welcome and encouraged to verify the  
correctness of the split.

Regards,
Maciej