- From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:05:59 +0000
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Mike's note is tracked in the list of Related emails and I added a Related note as you suggested. Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329 -----Original Message----- From: Noah Mendelsohn [mailto:nrm@arcanedomain.com] Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 11:58 AM To: Michael[tm] Smith Cc: Paul Cotton; public-html@w3.org; www-tag@w3.org Subject: Re: [Moderator Action] Re: author-only view of HTML5 and ACTION-190 That's great, thank you. Assuming the commitment to publish this as a part of the Rec is a formal one on behalf of the HTML working group, as I assume it is, then the TAG's concern is indeed resolved, and I thank you very much for both the work you've done, and for the careful response. Paul Cotton wrote (earlier): > I believe the ACTION-190 was closed when this document was published in January. See: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html-markup-20110113/ That's what misled me. Obviously it's up to the HTML WG to decide how to track its own action resolutions, but I note that the title of the issue is indeed "Fix pubrules problems with "author-only" view of the HTML5 specification", so I wonder whether it might be appropriate to note that it is indeed the publication of http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110113/author/ that should be associated with closing the action, as opposed to http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html-markup-20110113/? Thank you. Noah On 4/17/2011 3:16 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote: > Noah Mendelsohn<nrm@arcanedomain.com>, 2011-04-16 18:44 +0000: > >> Actually no, this does not resolve the concern. The document you >> reference above is indeed of interest to the TAG too, and we are glad >> that it is being published. but it is not the one in question here >> I'm fairly sure. That is [1], which is the author view of the main >> spec. That was the one that Mike had told us in Lyon he had left out >> of the then recently published package due to the work involved in >> pubrules compliance, and you (Paul) and I agreed that the TAG's concern would be resolved if it were put onto the rec track. >> I think it's clear from your 4 Nov 2010 message, quoted in part in >> the thread below, that it's [1] that's in question here. Can you >> confirm that it too is going into the Rec. packages? Thank you. > > It is now being published along with full spec each time we produce a > new working draft of that, and will continue to be going forward. The > only time the author view was not published along with the spec was > the 19 October 2010 round of publications. But after that we did two > more publication rounds, and the author view was included in both: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110113/author/ > http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110405/author/ >
Received on Sunday, 17 April 2011 16:06:34 UTC