Re: Promise broken on ISSUE 204?

On 05/07/2012 01:21 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>
> I may be forced to revert my CP withdrawal
> and pursue my document further.

I encourage you to read the meeting minutes.  In particular, I'll 
highlight that material that I think you should focus on.

There likely would be a strong objection to Cynthia's and (and possibly 
your) proposal(s):

   http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20120505#l-142

The basis of this was a statement that the spec text as drafted would 
specifically preclude UAs (including browsers) from ever giving a better 
experience:

   http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20120504#l-2920

On the other hand, there didn't seem to be anybody in the room opposed 
to giving authors strong guidance that they can't depend on such 
behavior, e.g.:

   http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20120504#l-2903

At this point, I'm not suggesting any specific action, other than 
reviewing this discussion.  You are welcome to re-propose your proposal, 
with or without change.  Just be aware that not making a change in 
response to what may turn out to be a strong objection could negatively 
affect the chances of your proposal being selected.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 19:58:55 UTC