W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Editorial patches staged for merge week 49

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:20:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJQvAudq2264mqxMvRD+npN9j-7A_h=yZyuO2xC=Zy1GkTFpgA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html-admin@w3.org
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure, modularity is a good way to introduce big features. But what about
> small features?
> I don't think we want to go to the extent of making every single patch an
> extension spec.

I think the HTML WG should default to accepting upstream
changesets—even non-editorial ones. It doesn’t do any good to let the
specs diverge just because it’s too much work to have a process for
affirmatively accept every change.

Henri Sivonen
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 13:20:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:32 UTC