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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 03:13:02 -0700
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, public html for all <list@html4all.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Message-id: <4E59E284-F05F-4A6A-9B04-2427C9EC81F9@apple.com>


On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:33 AM, Steven Faulkner wrote:

>
> At yesterdays HTML WG issue tracking telecon [1], the issue of headers
> not being allowed to reference a td (in the current version of spec)
> was discussed.
>
> It was decided by the Chair (Chris Wilson) after discussion and
> consideration of the pros and cons that the current spec should be
> changed to allow headers to reference a td element.

The Chair taking a technical decision in a teleconference is in  
violation of our charter. <http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html 
 >

Section 7, Decision Policy, says:

As explained in the Process Document (section 3.3), this group will  
seek to make decisions when there is consensus. We expect that  
typically, an editor makes an initial proposal, which is refined in  
discussion with Working Group members and other reviewers, and  
consensus emerges with little formal decision-making. However, if a  
decision is necessary for timely progress, but after due consideration  
of different opinions, consensus is not achieved, the Chair should put  
a question (allowing for remote, asynchronous participation using, for  
example, email and/or web-based survey techniques) and record a  
decision and any objections, and consider the matter resolved, at  
least until new information becomes available.
This charter is written in accordance with Section 3.4, Votes of the  
W3C Process Document and includes no voting procedures beyond what the  
Process Document requires.


Therefore I take the decision to be invalid and I would like Chair to  
explain why he made a technical decision in a teleconference without  
putting the question in a way that allows for asynchronous  
participation.

Chris?


Regards,
Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2008 10:13:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:58 UTC