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

Re: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 03:08:10 +0200
Message-ID: <4A80C47A.8010804@malform.no>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson On 09-08-11 02.55:

> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> I don't entirely agree, but it's better than nothing. Here's 
>> what I would propose:
>> 
>> 1) The issue was raised at least two months ago, by one of 
>> email, bugzilla or the issue tracker. AND 2) There has been 
>> no mutually satisfactory satisfactory outcome. AND 3) There 
>> is an open issue in the issue tracker indicating this.
>> 
>> (I originally said 6 months, but 2 months seems like a 
>> reasonable timeline.)
> 
> I prefer 6 months than 2 months because in practice many issues
>  have been open more than 2 months simply because I hadn't 
> gotten to the relevant feedback yet. Sometimes it takes even 
> longer, e.g. just earlier this afternoon I responded to some 
> mail from 2007 and 2008, but I think 6 months would be a 
> relatively good average and would ensure we don't end up with 
> issues that are so new that I haven't even looked at them yet.


Maciej also said:

>> Since Ian is incredibly responsive to implementor concerns, 
>> even in the face of massive flamewars [...] it seems like a
>> waste of time to mark such issues


To which I want to add that until *you* have looked at a feature 
and told your view, controversy usually doesn't (fully) arise. 
Hence a 2 month rule sounds good, and your objection seems 
hypothetical.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 01:08:53 GMT

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