Meta: Notice: Moving PR6478 to W3C Extension Specification

[travisleithead]

Hello WHATWG HTML community!

The SG has reviewed a recent escalation on the subject of HTML's <ruby> element and related markup. The authors of PR 6478 have put considerable effort into researching and proposing some changes to the Ruby content model, such that it will be able to support a wider variety of use-cases, as well as the CSS Ruby Layout specification. While the PR does not currently meet the requirements for merging into the HTML living standard, the SG believes that there is sufficient justification for the W3C to publish the contents of the PR as a standalone REC-track Ruby Extension spec under the terms of the W3C/WHATWG MoU. The Ruby Extension spec will clearly document its intention to be merged back into HTML at such time as it can meet our inclusion criteria. Furthermore, in the interim, the authors of the Ruby Extension spec intend to help synchronize the subset of features defined in both specs--helpful because some parts of HTML's specified Ruby content and processing models are implemented differently in browsers today. This should serve to minimize deltas between the two specifications for the indeterminate period in which both are maintained.

If this community has any concerns with this plan of action, the SG would be interested in hearing and discussing them.

Thanks!

[annevk]

Due to the holidays in some parts of the world our next triage meeting is on January 13. It's probably best to raise any substantive concerns before then here, in writing.

[domenic]

Thanks for the notice Travis! I don't really have any concerns with anyone developing such incubation-style specs outside of the HTML Standard; the Chrome team, for example, is developing a number of such features which do not yet have multi-implementer interest. (Confining ourselves just to new HTML elements, portals is one such proposal; of course there are many more non-element incubation specs which eventually hope to land in HTML.)

Whether the W3C wants to publish such a document as a Working Group Note or Rec or Community Group Draft, is really up to the W3C and folks working there. So far the precedent has been for such incubations to be community group drafts, and e.g. I think Mozilla's position is to file formal objections for working groups without multi-browser implementations (as exemplified by @tantek in these formal objections: webappsec, devices and sensors, and the non-formal one for webapps). But I'm not up to speed on everyone's policies and thoughts on the matter over in W3C space. And ultimately it's up to them, and not a matter for the WHATWG community to get involved in, IMO.

I also look forward to any contributions aligning the HTML Standard's ruby model with what's implemented today, assuming they come with tests and such as per our working mode. I'd encourage such changes to be surgical and minimal, and not be based on any rewrite or other base document besides the current spec; that will make it easier to accept them and maintain them going forward.

[annevk]

Closing this as this has been resolved.