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

Re: @headers issue resolved - allowing a td to be referenced by a header to be in the HTMl5 spec.

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 16:25:22 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80808310825j2ccdc10epedf320a400f84ab3@mail.gmail.com>
To: "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>

Hi jgraham,
Arguments were put forward in the bug, those were rejected by the editor.
The issue was then clearly escalated by the editor himself, when he
sent it to the chairs for arbitration.

Arbitration involved it being added to the issue tracker, information
being gathered, opposing views considered and a resolution being made.

I question whether you would be squealing like a stuck pig about
process if you  agreed with the arbitration decision.

regards
stevef

On 31/08/2008, James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> >
> > James Graham wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> > > The decision making process in the charter specifically documents how to
> break that cycle. The first requirement is to demonstrate that there is a
> need to do so.
> > > ...
> > >
> >
> > I think it was pretty clear that there was a need to.
> >
> > The discussion had been going on for a long time, and there was no visible
> progress on it. So it appears to me that the chairs were right in trying to
> get progress on this issue.
> >
>
>  In this case the feedback cycle looked like this
>
>  Initial draft -- Lots and lots of feedback -- New draft including @headers
> -- More feedback
>
>  It's not clear to me why making a decision now before the second "redraft"
> stage of the cycle makes sense. It would make more sense if the editor had
> made a change, people were still unhappy, but felt that they had already
> presented all their arguments. If there is a real need to speed up the
> redrafing of this section, I think it is possible to ask the editor to
> prioritize it; as far as I am aware that has not occurred.
>
>
>  --
>  "Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
>   -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
>


-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Sunday, 31 August 2008 15:25:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:57 UTC