Re: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Michiel Bijl]

Woohoo!

—Michiel

> On 13 Jun 2016, at 18:11, Léonie Watson <t...@tink.uk> wrote:
> 
> Hello WP,
> 
> This CFC passed with many expressions of support. Thank you to everyone who
> responded and gave feedback.
> 
> Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team, and HTML editors
> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk]
>> Sent: 02 June 2016 13:48
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Léonie Watson]

Hello WP,

This CFC passed with many expressions of support. Thank you to everyone who
responded and gave feedback.

Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team, and HTML editors


> -Original Message-
> From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk]
> Sent: 02 June 2016 13:48
> 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
> 
> 
> 

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Alexander Schmitz]

+1
Alexander Schmitz
jQuery Foundation


On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Ian Pouncey  wrote:
> +1
>
> On 2 June 2016 at 13:48, Léonie Watson  wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Ian Pouncey]

+1

On 2 June 2016 at 13:48, Léonie Watson  wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Adrian Roselli]

+1

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Dylan Barrell 
wrote:

> +1
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Joanmarie Diggs  wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> --joanie
>>
>> On 06/02/2016 08:48 AM, Léonie Watson wrote:
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Download the aXe browser extension for free:
>
> Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/axe-devtools
> Chrome:
> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/axe/lhdoppojpmngadmnindnejefpokejbdd?hl=en-US
>
> Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond
> to it. - Lou Holtz
>
>

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Dylan Barrell]

+1

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Joanmarie Diggs  wrote:

> +1
>
> --joanie
>
> On 06/02/2016 08:48 AM, Léonie Watson wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 
Download the aXe browser extension for free:

Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/axe-devtools
Chrome:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/axe/lhdoppojpmngadmnindnejefpokejbdd?hl=en-US

Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond
to it. - Lou Holtz

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Joanmarie Diggs]

+1

--joanie

On 06/02/2016 08:48 AM, Léonie Watson wrote:
> 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 
> 
> 

RE: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Léonie Watson]

> From: Sangwhan Moon [mailto:sangw...@iki.fi]
> Sent: 03 June 2016 02:45
> 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...)

In the interests of holding a useful discussion, without creating more email on 
this thread, comments, ideas and suggestions are welcome here:
https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/issues/38 

Léonie.

-- 
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem

Re: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Zero]

+1 for moving HTML5.1 to CR.

Best Regards,
Shaohang Yang

-邮件原件-
发件人: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk] 
发送时间: 2016年6月2日 20:48
收件人: 'public-webapps WG'
主题: 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

Re: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Sangwhan Moon]

> 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.)

Sangwhan

>>> 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 an

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Alex Danilo]

+1 for moving HTML5.1 to CR.

Alex

On 3 June 2016 at 05:30, Gez Lemon  wrote:

> +1
>
> On 2 June 2016 at 13:48, Léonie Watson  wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> _
> Senior Accessibility Engineer
> The Paciello Group
>
> This message is intended to be confidential and may be legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please delete this message from your system and notify us
> immediately. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or
> omitted to be taken by an unintended recipient in reliance on this message
> is prohibited and may be unlawful.
>

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Gez Lemon]

+1

On 2 June 2016 at 13:48, Léonie Watson  wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
_
Senior Accessibility Engineer
The Paciello Group

This message is intended to be confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended
recipient, please delete this message from your system and notify us
immediately. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or
omitted to be taken by an unintended recipient in reliance on this message
is prohibited and may be unlawful.

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[wayne carr]

+1 for moving HTML5.1 to CR

Re: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Chaals McCathie Nevile]

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.


cheers

Chaals

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

RE: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Léonie Watson]

> From: mar...@marcosc.com [mailto:mar...@marcosc.com]
> Sent: 02 June 2016 17:15
> Can we please kindly stop the +1s spam? It greatly diminishes the value of
> this mailing list.

We mention in the CFC that positive responses are preferred and encouraged 
(which they are), so this is an appeal to everyone's good nature for a little 
patience and email filtering fu. Thank you.


Léonie.

-- 
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem

Re: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[marcos]

> 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-Poli

Re: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[John Foliot]

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?)

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

Re: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[marcos]

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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Mona Rekhi]

+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

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Steve Faulkner]

aye - (as TPG WG person)

--

Regards

SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C


On 2 June 2016 at 13:48, Léonie Watson  wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Chaals McCathie Nevile]

On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 14:48:10 +0200, Léonie Watson  wrote:


Hello WP,

This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML
Working Draft (WD) as a Candidate Recommendation (CR).


+1 Please do.

chaals - Yandex hat on, chair hat off

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

Re: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[John Foliot]

+1

JF

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryla...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 to publish WD
>
> ​
>
>
>
> * katie *
>
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
>
> Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryla...@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile |
> Office: 703-371-5545
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 8:53 AM
> To: public-h...@w3.org
> Subject: FW: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)
>
> Please respond on public-webapps@w3.org as the official email for the WP
> WG.
> Thanks.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk]
> Sent: 02 June 2016 13:48
> 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

RE: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL]

+1 to publish WD

​



* katie *
 
Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
 
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryla...@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | 
Office: 703-371-5545


-Original Message-
From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 8:53 AM
To: public-h...@w3.org
Subject: FW: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

Please respond on public-webapps@w3.org as the official email for the WP WG.
Thanks.


-Original Message-
From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk]
Sent: 02 June 2016 13:48
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

RE: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Léonie Watson]

> From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk]
> Sent: 02 June 2016 13:48
> 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.

+1 (as TPG WG participant, not chair).

Léonie.

-- 
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem

CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Léonie Watson]

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