- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:14:16 -0500
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 04:31 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:05:01 +0200, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) > <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote: > > > My recollection (which may, after all this time, be flawed) > > I think your recollection is accurate. > > > is that the group agreed to publish the Design Principles > > document first. It was an informal poll rather than a binding decision, so I wouldn't use the word "agreed", but that's a quibble... > I do not believe that we have yet > > agreed these, let alone published them, so is it not > > premature to thing of publishing another document > > (the HTML 5 Draft) without the Design Principles > > document as a fundamental pre-requisite ? > > I don't think so, for the following reasons: > > 1. The decision to publish design principles was as I recall an attempt to > get something published in time to make our heartbeat requirment (or > nearly make it). It turns out that the premise seems flawed, so I suggest > we revisit the decision. I agree; I have re-opened the survey. http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/wd7/ http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/wd7/results -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 19 October 2007 17:13:41 UTC