W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2011

Re: [Bug 13100] TAG issue on HTML+RDFa and Microdata last call drafts

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:13:53 -0400
Message-ID: <4E2DA451.8030901@arcanedomain.com>
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
CC: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, "Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net)" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com)" <mjs@apple.com>
Thank you, Paul, for this clarification. The TAG held a call on 21 July 
2011, but I was not able to participate.  On that call, the TAG asked that 
I respond to you with the following:

Thank you for clarifying the process options.

The TAG is not quite clear how to proceed.  Your final paragraph
("Since the TAG's plan appears to be to create a task force...")
comes close to what we would like, in that it makes clear that as
and when the task force reports one or more Issues can be created
against bugs 13100 and 13101 [1], [2].  But from our perspective we
would be happier if the Status of these bugs were such that they
showed up in searches of Open bugs during the life of the proposed
task force.

In particular, it appears that if we don't want 13100 to be Closed
officially on 1 August, we have to either escalate (not appropriate
at this point) or reopen (not appropriate at this point).  Could you
please arrange for the bugs to just remain unclosed until, based on
the task force outcome, the TAG either reopens it, escalates, or
accepts the _status quo_ and closes it?  Fullscale closure seems
misleading as long as a task force is actively pursuing the
matter . . .

Since I was not at the meeting, I can not provide more details directly, 
but the draft minutes of the pertinent discussion are available at [3].

Thank you very much.

Noah Mendelsohn
for the W3C Technical Architecture Group

[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13100
[2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13101
[3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/07/21-minutes.html#item03


On 7/19/2011 3:04 PM, Paul Cotton wrote:
>> If raising this as an issue now will help that to happen, then the TAG should know that.
> If you raise this bug as an Issue then the HTML WG Chairs next step in the escalation path would be to request change proposals.  See " 1. Raised Issue: Chairs Solicit Proposals"  [1].
> This is effectively a call for WG volunteers to draft change proposals for the Issue.  Normally such a call for Proposals lasts for one month.  Note that the WG Chairs cannot compel anyone in the WG to draft such a change proposal.  And if no change proposals are forthcoming then the Issue is closed "without prejudice" as per the 2.a Closed without Prejudice" step in the escalation path.
> "2.a. Closed without Prejudice
> If no one volunteers within a month of the Chairs' request, or a Change Proposal is not presented by the deadline, the Tracker Issue will be marked POSTPONED in the Tracker without prejudice and presumed deferred to the next version of HTML. In this case, we affirm the Editor's decision by default. The Basic Process then proceeds from step 7a. An issue that is closed without prejudice in this way can only be re-raised with approval of the Chairs. ** This is an endpoint for the escalation process. **"
> So unless the TAG participants have a particular set of changes in mind, have a specific change proposal to be tabled or know of at least one WG member that is going to draft a change proposal I would NOT recommend you escalate this bug into an ISSUE at this time.
> Since the TAG's plan appears to be to create a task force to work on this matter, I believe the best plan would be to wait for that task force to build the necessary change proposal(s) and to use the two bugs the WG has created to table those proposals.  Then depending on the action of the Editor(s) based on those change proposal(s) you could decide if you want to escalate one or both of the bugs into WG Issues.
> Please let me know if you need any further clarification on the above advice.
> /paulc
> HTML WG co-chair
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html#escalation
> 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: Monday, July 18, 2011 6:54 PM
> To: Paul Cotton
> Cc: Jeni Tennison; www-tag@w3.org List; Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net); Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com)
> Subject: Re: [Bug 13100] TAG issue on HTML+RDFa and Microdata last call drafts
> On 7/18/2011 6:27 PM, Paul Cotton wrote:
>> This effectively means that you have until Jan 14, 2012 to convert any Last Call bug into an Issue as per the WG's escalation path of its Decision Policy:
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html#escala
>> tion
>> Please let me know if this information is clear.
> Speaking for myself, as opposed to TAG as a whole: yes, it is now that you point it out. That said, I think all of the following are true:
> * There is significant ongoing investment in use of both these technologies. Parallel use of them in their current forms will become more and more entrenched in coming weeks and months.
> * We probably need to bring together quite a range of perspectives to validate any proposed solution (my view of why the W3C task force makes sense)
> * The HTML WG is ultimately responsible for the specifications, and almost surely has essential expertise in crafting, or at least validating any solutions.
> Putting all that together, I think it would be desirable for the HTML WG members to put some energy into helping to come up with better solutions sooner rather than later. If raising this as an issue now will help that to happen, then the TAG should know that. Otherwise, it's useful to know that we can wait until January without tripping over process obstacles.
> In general, the sentiment I heard in the TAG was to try to get everyone to focus on this ASAP, before the problem gets harder to solve than it already is.
> Thank you.
> Noah
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 17:14:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:39 UTC