11324 2010-11-16 14:22:26 +0000 Warning in /TR documents 2011-08-04 05:33:51 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified PC Linux RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 plh ian contributor ian laura.lee.carlson mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 42560 0 plh 2010-11-16 14:22:26 +0000 I talked to the W3C communications staff about the warning in the specification and here is the conclusion we reached: 1- The warning window should be killable after N seconds or manually. If it is done manually, it needs to be keyboard accessible. 2- We propose the following change for the text: [[ This document is a snapshot of a work in progress! Between snapshots, the HTML Working Group fixes bugs and experiments with new features in the Editor's Draft. ]] I believe that 1 is already addressed in the editor's draft. 42657 1 mike 2010-11-20 13:33:38 +0000 (In reply to comment #0) > 2- We propose the following change for the text: > [[ > This document is a snapshot of a work in progress! Between snapshots, > the HTML Working Group fixes bugs and experiments with new features in > the Editor's Draft. > ]] It's not clear how that is any improvement over the text that is already in the warning and that has already been discussed on the public-html list. That text is this: [[ This is a work in progress! For the latest updates from the HTML WG, possibly including important bug fixes, please look at the <a>editor's draft</a> instead. ]] That text came directly from Maciej, in a message to the group: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Oct/0453.html …and he followed that up with a request to the group to indicate if anybody had objections to the wording of that - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Oct/0457.html [[ If everyone is ok with this wording, I think the right next step would be for editors to provide updated Editor's Drafts that include it. Maybe Ian can go first so other editors have an example to copy from. It seems the general sentiment is in favor of a warning that shows up no matter where you are in the draft, but can be hidden to avoid distraction. ]] …and nobody as yes has expressed any strong objections to that wording. There are still some reservations about whether a persistent warning like this is the best solution, but the prevailing agreement seems to be that it's acceptable at least -- that most everybody can live with it and would not object to it strongly. So unless there's some really compelling reason for the new wording proposed in the description for this bug, I would suggest that we instead just continue to use the existing wording that Maciej came up with and that's already been discussed. 42658 2 plh 2010-11-20 14:07:47 +0000 IMO, the current wording doesn't reflect enough the fact that what is in the editor does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the group, thus the mention of "experiments" in the proposed wording. 42662 3 laura.lee.carlson 2010-11-20 18:25:25 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) Hi Mike, > nobody as yes has expressed any strong objections to that wording. I expressed a concern and made a suggestion. It was ignored. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Oct/0466.html The W3C communications staff's verbiage would alleviate that problem with the original wording. > It's not clear how that is any improvement over the text that is already in the > warning and that has already been discussed on the public-html list. That text > is this: > [[ > This is a work in progress! > > For the latest updates from the HTML WG, possibly including important bug > fixes, please look at the <a>editor's draft</a> instead. > ]] > The editor's draft isn't necessarily the "latest updates from the HTML WG". It is the latest updates from the editor. (In reply to comment #2) Hi Philippe, > IMO, the current wording doesn't reflect enough the fact that what is in the > editor does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the group, thus the mention of "experiments" in the proposed wording. I agree. W3C communications staff's verbiage is a simple and honest statement. 42691 4 Ms2ger 2010-11-22 11:30:36 +0000 *** Bug 11318 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 43117 5 ian 2010-12-07 02:12:55 +0000 The TR/ drafts don't reflect the opinion of the group either (and indeed the dev.w3.org draft certainly doesn't reflect the opinions of its editor, even the WHATWG draft, which is way closer to my opinions, doesn't reflect my opinions completely). The draft already clearly states all this in the status section, so I don't think it makes much sense to change the text further. EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Partially Accepted Change Description: see diff given below Rationale: Request #1 is done, request #2 is based on faulty rationale as discussed above. 53854 6 mike 2011-08-04 05:33:51 +0000 mass-move component to LC1