RE: [fileapi] Pull Request on GitHub

[Adrian Bateman]

> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:38:59, Marijn Kruisselbrink wrote:
> Sorry about that. Somehow that PR slipped through the cracks. I've commented
> on the PR.
> 
> Anybody knows what the deal is with the ipr check? What makes it fail, and if
> it fails who is supposed to do what to not make it fail?

This happens when someone who is not a recognized (by the tool) member of
the WG makes a pull request.

Since this looks like only editorial changes, we'll mark it as non-substantive.

Cheers,

Adrian.

Re: [fileapi] Pull Request on GitHub

[Marijn Kruisselbrink]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Arun Ranganathan 
wrote:

> I won't be editing it either.
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 4:44 AM, Marcos Caceres 
> wrote:
>
>> On August 16, 2016 at 6:31:31 PM, Zhen Zhang (izgz...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I have a PR on GitHub regarding some issues of wording in current File
>> API spec: https://github.com/w3c/FileAPI/pull/42
>> > , but nobody ever responded me there.
>> > I wonder if I should discuss the patch somewhere else?
>>
> Sorry about that. Somehow that PR slipped through the cracks. I've
commented on the PR.

Anybody knows what the deal is with the ipr check? What makes it fail, and
if it fails who is supposed to do what to not make it fail?

It seems that no one has touched that API for about 8 months.
>>
> Not sure where you're getting 8 months from? I definitely still have
catching up with outstanding issues to do, but I have been doing work on
the API significantly more recent than 8 months.


> Marijn, are you still editing that document? I guess Jonas won't be,
>> but not sure about Arun.
>>
> Yes, I'm still editing that document. Just haven't had time yet to fully
catch up with outstanding issues/comments.

WG Decision on referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension

[Adrian Bateman]

The chairs have published details of the Working Group decision
on referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension in HTML.
In short, most of the CfC carried without objection but there were
some objections related to the longdesc examples.

For convenience, the decision text is pasted below but the full text
including links is posted at [1].

Thanks to everyone who participated in the CfC discussion.

Adrian, on behalf of the WPWG chairs.

[1] 
https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/blob/gh-pages/decisions/imagedesc-08-2016.md


Working Group Decision on referencing the Image Description (longdesc) 
extension in HTML

Question before the working group

The HTML 5.1 draft added normative references to the Image Description 
(longdesc) Recommendation including IDL definitions. The CfC issued on 5 August 
2016 proposed:

1. Remove the longdesc attribute from the table of attributes in HTML core.
2. Remove the IDL information for the longdesc attribute from HTML core.
3. Keep the longdesc examples in HTML core.
4. Create a WG Note listing known extension specifications.
5. Include a link to the HTML Extension Specifications Note from HTML core 
(probably in the index).

Consensus

There were expressions of support and no objections for #1, #2, #4, and #5. 
These steps reflect the consensus of the group.

Objections

There was disagreement on #3 namely whether to keep non-normative examples for 
longdesc in the specification. In summary, the concerns raised here are:

* Some people indicated that the HTML 5.1 spec should not include examples for 
technology that is not normatively defined in the spec itself.

* Some people indicated that non-normative examples necessarily rely on 
technology that is not defined in the spec, though no examples were cited.

* Some people indicated that editors should have editorial freedom over 
non-normative text including examples.

Separately, a concern was raised that whatever decision was taken for longdesc 
should also apply to other features such as RDFa and the rev attribute.

Decision of the Working Group

Principles

The Working Group has not yet chosen an approach for how to modularise the HTML 
specification. This topic will be discussed at TPAC 2016. Until this is 
decided, the chairs intend to implement the following principles:

* The Working Group SHOULD NOT incorporate features from HTML Extension 
Specifications that have independently reached Recommendation status into the 
main HTML Specification.

* The Working Group SHOULD maintain a list of applicable HTML Extension 
specifications as a Working Group Note.

In addition:

* The Working Group provides editors the freedom to enhance specifications with 
non-normative text that improves readability and makes documents easier to 
understand without seeking approval from the working group. However, members of 
the Working Group MAY express an opinion on this text and seek consensus to 
change it.

Summary of Arguments

In the judgement of the chairs, the strongest argument for not incorporating 
longdesc in informative examples is that the feature does not exist in the HTML 
5.1 specification and isn't necessary for the rest of the example to be valid. 
It may be true that some examples rely on technology not defined in HTML 5.1 
but in general this should only be done when it is necessary for the example to 
be easily comprehended.

In this case, the weakest argument for leaving the informative examples intact 
was that this is a decision left to the editorial team. While we don't intend 
to micro-manage the great editorial work contributed by the editors, in this 
instance the argument to avoid technology defined elsewhere if feasible is more 
persuasive.

By applying the principles above, we must consider whether other parts of the 
HTML 5.1 draft also incorporate features from other W3C Recommendations. The 
chairs agree that the RDFa examples are part of a Recommendation and must also 
be removed.

The rev attribute was previously described in HTML 5.0 and the HTML 5.1 draft 
defines this content attribute in a more formal way. The rev attribute does not 
need to be removed.

Decision

The Web Platform Working Group adopts parts #1, #2, #4, and #5 of the CfC 
proposal. Further, the Web Platform Working Group rejects #3 and adopts the 
decision to remove longdesc from the examples in HTML 5.1. This reverts the 
document to the same state as HTML 5.0 for this issue.

The Web Platform Working Group will also apply this decision to RDFa and will 
remove the RDFa examples.

Next steps

The chairs will ask the editors to remove the longdesc content that was added 
through PR #441 and PR #449 and the similar RDFa content.

The chairs and Team will work with the editors will to create a Working Group 
Note listing the applicable HTML extension specifications.

Appealing this Decision

If anyone feels they have not received due process, or that their concerns have 
not being duly considered in the course of rea

Re: CfC: Pointer Lock to Proposed Recommendation; deadline August 20

[Léonie Watson]

+1

Great for this to be progressing.

Léonie.

--
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem

On 14/08/2016 00:01, Xiaoqian Wu wrote:

Hello, Web Platform WG,

This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Proposed Recommendation of
Pointer Lock using the [PR] as the basis. Agreement with this CfC means
you consider the test results shows interoperability and the changes
since CR are not substantive.

The test results for Pointer Lock [All] indicate significant
interoperability, with only one test that have less than two passes [<2].
; this test failure
can be considered more of a Web IDL implementation issue. The group
believes it will get better over time as WebIDL compliance progresses.

The current [OPEN ISSUES], #5 is about adding pointerlock to the
permissions enum, will be fixed the next version. Another issue is
about pointerlockchange and the accessibility tree (#1), which is
resolved by a magnification software note added to pointerlockchange and
pointerlockerror Events.

Changes since the CR publication includes:
* Specify movementX/Y to be 0 after gaps in mouse input.

We consider the change since the CR as non-substantive. See [Diff] for
all of changes between the CR and the draft PR.

If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply to
this e-mail by August 20 at the latest. Positive response is preferred
and encouraged, and silence will be considered as agreement with the
proposal. If there are no non-resolvable objections to this proposal,
the motion will carry and we will request the PR be published on August
25 2016.

Thanks.

-xiaoqian

[PR] http://w3c.github.io/pointerlock/publish/index-2016-PR.html
[All] http://w3c.github.io/test-results/pointerlock/all.html
[<2] http://w3c.github.io/test-results/pointerlock/less-than-2.html
[OPEN ISSUES] https://github.com/w3c/pointerlock/issues
[Diff]
https://github.com/w3c/pointerlock/commits/gh-pages/index.html
http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2016%2FCR-pointerlock-20160705%2F&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fpointerlock%2Fpublish%2Findex-2016-PR.html