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

Re: summary attribute compromise proposal

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 06:22:32 -0400
Message-ID: <4A795D68.9040004@intertwingly.net>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>>> Why do my proposals require consensus but Ian's proposals do not?
>>
>> Anyone's proposal requires consensus to become a decision of the 
>> Working Group (or if consensus is not achievable, a vote). Since Ian 
>> is an editor, he gets to make his proposals in spec draft form. See 
>> above. Sam has said he is open to letting anyone become an editor if 
>> they'd like to make proposals in the form of a spec draft too. Or you 
>> can just make an informal proposal, like I did.
> 
> Fine. So, when we take a vote on Ian's change to HTML table's @summary
> and find that there is no consensus for that change in the WG, then
> Ian's change to HTML will be removed from the draft prior to its
> next publication.  Right?

My position is that Working Drafts prior to Last Call do not need to 
have consensus, do not need to be stable, and do not need to meet 
Working Group requirements.

Starting with Last Call, it is an entirely different ball game.  If 
either or both of removing things or adding things is required for 
consensus, no drafts will go forward as candidates for Last Call until 
those changes are done.

Ian's working assumption is that his document will be ready for Last 
Call in October.

> ....Roy

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 10:38:41 GMT

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