> On Jun 3, 2016, at 01:35, Chaals McCathie Nevile <cha...@yandex-team.ru> 
> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 18:14:38 +0200, <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.
> Hi Marcos,
> If there are no objections, then the +1's indeed don't matter. But if there 
> is one or more, then having some measure of the overall consensus of the 
> group is important.
> It's why we've got the arrangement that except where progressing makes a 
> significant difference, we do it automatically and allow for objection as the 
> exception case. Moving to CR potentially binds members to patent commitments, 
> which matters to some members as well as to many people "out there in the 
> wild", and requires that we demonstrate agreement of the group.
> So I'm sorry for the extra mail, but in this case I'm afraid it's part of 
> running the W3C process. If everything goes smoothly, you can expect this for 
> HTML twice more in the next year: once to move to Proposed Recommendation, 
> and once to move 5.2 to First Public Working Draft.

I believe Marcos is raising a valid concern here - while I'm not in full 
agreement that only objections
matter, most of the people get enough mail already and it does make it easy to 
get important feedback
lost in a chain of +1 mails. (and when it piles up, it's just something you zip 
through and mark as read,
now repeat time spent doing that multiplied by subscribers of this ML...)

Having a platform where the chairs/staff can get a quick overview of the 
consensus stats sounds a
like it could save time in the even anyone needs the consensus statistics. (As 
mentioned in a earlier
reply, WBS could work, even if it's not a great tool per se.)


>>> 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
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Reply via email to