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

Re: discretion in adding issues [was: respecification of document.write...]

From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 15:47:42 +0000
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FCB0A30C-61BF-45C0-B5F3-4DFE9EBABFD9@robburns.com>
Cc: public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org

HI Dan,

On May 29, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 21:10 +0000, Robert J Burns wrote:
>> Dear WG,
>>
>> Here is another issue that needs to be introduced here for  
>> discussion,
>> as it will be added to the issue-tracker in time.
>
> Adding an issue to the tracker creates a burden for the whole group,
> so it's not the sort of thing we should do at the request
> of just one person.

I understand.


> "need" is a strong word; it's not at all clear to me that
> the WG _needs_ to make a decision about respecification
> of document.write.

I'm not sure where you're referring to the use of the word "need". My  
use of that word was that I "need" to send an introductory message to  
the list about the issue (that was referring to my own sense of duty  
allowing the WG to discuss the issue). I don't know why you would have  
any dispute about that. Though perhaps you're referring to a different  
occurrence of that word.

This issue of document.write was not requested by specifically one  
person (at least not in my recollection). Rather it arose out of some  
discussion with many WG members of the inconsistencies between the  
text/html and XML serializations and the difficulties any author faces  
in trying to transition from one to the other. I personally have no  
stake in that, but felt the editor was not adequately addressing those  
concerns (along with most of the others, I've just recently raised).

Take care,
Rob
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 15:48:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 May 2008 15:48:27 GMT