W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org > August 2008

Re: toward a schedule of HTML WG issues

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:13:28 -0500
To: Shawn Medero <shawn@db79.com>
Cc: public-html-wg-issue-tracking <public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1219425208.4554.275.camel@pav.lan>

On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 09:32 -0700, Shawn Medero wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 13:48 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > [...]
> >>
> >> I also suggest we demote many/most of our OPEN issues to RAISED,
> >> and discourage discussion of issues that aren't OPEN.
> >>   http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/open
> >
> > I pruned that list to 5 issues. I'm interested in more feedback
> > before we discourage discussion of the others.
> Should we open "HTML Versioning and DOCTYPEs":
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/4
> It is one of those that seems to come up in telecons from time to time.

I think the occasional discussion of a RAISED issue in passing
is fine.

The idea here is to use OPEN to mean: this is a/the main focus
of the WG for the coming few weeks.

About the versioning issue in particular...
I thought about that one a bit... the design seems fairly
stable and I was tempted to move it to PENDINGREVIEW, actually.
I couldn't remember a specific summary of the editor's
consideration of the arguments, though, so I didn't do that.

Nearby is "Need to update media type registrations"
I lean toward fleshing that out before we close 4.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 17:14:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:48:29 UTC