> On 3 Jun 2016, at 2:28 AM, John Foliot <john.fol...@deque.com> wrote: > > Hi Marcos, > > While it may feel spammy to you, this is a long-standing part of the W3C > Consensus process, and generally speaking all CfCs include the following: > > "Positive responses are preferred and encouraged, silence will be considered > as assent." > > > On the surface, and in principle, I disagree that the "only thing that > matters is objections", as visible signs of strong support matter too. > Receiving a handful of +1 emails is to me an acceptable process (unless this > group chooses to use another means of confirming consensus: perhaps WBS > surveys or similar?)
That would be great. Just anything but +1 emails please. > > JF > > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:14 AM, <mar...@marcosc.com> wrote: >> Can we please kindly stop the +1s spam? It greatly diminishes the value of >> this mailing list. >> >> For the purpose of progressing a spec, the only thing that matters is >> objections. >> >> > On 3 Jun 2016, at 12:36 AM, Mona Rekhi <mona.re...@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote: >> > >> > +1 >> > >> > Mona Rekhi >> > SSB BART Group >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk] >> > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 8:48 AM >> > To: 'public-webapps WG' <public-webapps@w3.org> >> > Subject: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR) >> > >> > Hello WP, >> > >> > This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML >> > Working Draft (WD) as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). It has been posted >> > to public-webapps@w3.org as the official email for this WG. >> > >> > Please reply to this thread on public-webapps@w3.org no later than end of >> > day on 10 June. Positive responses are preferred and encouraged, silence >> > will be considered as assent. >> > >> > The current HTML5.1 WD [1] improves upon HTML5. It includes updates that >> > make it more reliable, more readable and understandable, and a better >> > match for reality. Substantial changes between HTML5 and HTML5.1 can be >> > found in the spec [2]. >> > >> > When a specification moves to CR it triggers a Call For Exclusions, per >> > section 4 of the W3C Patent Policy [3]. No substantive additions can be >> > made to a specification in CR without starting a new Call for Exclusions, >> > so we will put HTML5.1 into "feature freeze". It is possible to make >> > editorial updates as necessary, and features marked "At Risk" may be >> > removed if found not to be interoperable. >> > >> > The following features are considered "at risk". If we cannot identify at >> > least two shipping implementations, they will be marked "at risk" in the >> > CR and may be removed from the Proposed Recommendation. >> > >> > keygen element. [issue 43] >> > label as a reassociatable element [issue 109] Fixing requestAnimationFrame >> > to 60Hz, not implementation-defined [issues 159/375/422] >> > registerContentHandler [Issue 233] inputmode attribute of the input >> > element [issue 269] autofill of form elements [issue 372] menu, menuitem >> > and context menus. [issue 373] dialog element [issue 427] Text tracks >> > exposing in-band metadata best practices [Issue 461] datetime and >> > datatime-local states of the input element [Issue 462] >> > >> > Please share implementation details for any of these features on Github. >> > To mark other features "at risk", please identify them by 10th June >> > (ideally by filing an issue and providing a test case). >> > >> > At the same time we move HTML5.1 into CR, we plan to continue updating the >> > Editor's Draft, and in the next few weeks we expect to post a Call for >> > Consensus to publish it as the First Public Working Draft of HTML5.2, so >> > improving HTML will continue without a pause. It also means that changes >> > that didn't make it into >> > HTML5.1 will not have long to wait before being incorporated into the >> > specification. >> > >> > Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team, and HTML editors. >> > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/ >> > [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/changes.html#changes >> > [3] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exclusion >> > >> > [issue 43] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/43 >> > [issue 109] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/109 >> > [issues 159/375/422] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/159 and links >> > [issue 233] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/233 >> > [issue 269] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/269 >> > [issue 372] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/372 >> > [issue 373] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/373 >> > [issue 427] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/427 >> > [Issue 461] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/461 >> > [Issue 462] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/462 >> > >> > >> > -- >> > @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > -- > John Foliot > Principal Accessibility Consultant > Deque Systems Inc. > john.fol...@deque.com > > Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
