W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: My position (was RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2)

From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:00:53 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.2.20090802163540.05f9d5a0@mail.muzmo.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>,'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'W3C WAI-XTECH' <wai-xtech@w3.org>,judy@w3c.org, "'Michael(tm) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>,'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, 'Maciej Stachowiak' <mjs@apple.com>
At 03:55 PM 8/2/2009 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:

>I truly and honestly believe that the vote is between "obsolete" and 
>"deprecated"(*), yet we have no less than three people saying that what 
>appears to me to be a very clear difference is something that they would 
>need more information on in order to express an opinion.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my vote is not between whether @summary 
belongs
in one undefined class or another. But it seems that the chair has 
positioned us so that we
are going to vote between one document and another. That is truly unfortunate.

As a vote between publishing one document vs another, the polity becomes 
extremely difficult.

Honestly, I am flabbergasted by what is passing as process here. Everybody 
needs to take
a step back and recognize that this has now entered into theater of the 
absurd. Forking HTML
is the wrong thing to do, on the face of it. Please put an end to this 
insanity.

Regards,

Murray
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 21:00:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT