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

Re: Feedback on the current editor's draft

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:11:38 -0500
Message-ID: <4A818A2A.5060709@burningbird.net>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Shawn Medero <smedero@uw.edu>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Adrian Bateman wrote:
>> On Friday, August 07, 2009 3:18 PM, Shawn Medero wrote:
>>> Associating this thread with ISSUE-75 for the benefit of tracker. 
>>> (Though, it is not clear to me what ISSUE-75 wants to accomplish.
>>> It seems like Adrian's email has the potential to open up several
>>> separate issues depending on the pulse of the working group...
>>> where as ISSUE-75 looks a lot more like an ACTION item.)
>>
>> ISSUE-75 is "Microsoft Review of HTML5". I notice in the mail where
>> Sam mentioned creating the issue it was alongside re-opening the
>> codec issue (ISSUE-7 "codec support and the <video> element"). I'm
>> not sure if the two are related or not. Is there a specific question
>> here? Is there a clear idea of what we need to do to close this
>> issue?
>
> I've added a link to your feedback, and changed the status to PENDING 
> REVIEW.  As far as I'm concerned, this item is addressed to my 
> satisfaction. [full disclosure: the last ECMA TC39 meeting was in 
> Redmond, and I took the opportunity to meet with Mike Champion, 
> Cynthia Shelly, Chris Wilson, Rob Mauceri, and Dean Hachamovitch.  My 
> input is based on what I saw and discussed there].
>
> But before closing issue-75, I'd like to give others an opportunity to 
> comment.  In particular I'd appreciate the input of Shelley Powers who 
> indirectly was responsible for the creation of this issue.
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Adrian.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
I'm not sure why I seem to figure into this issue, other than it is 
important that one vendor not be allowed to mandate what is, or is not 
included in the specification. However, voting on that as an issue is 
just opening the door to a plethora of circular arguments, manifested in 
an avalanche of emails, so it's better to focus on individual items, 
such as the video issue, which is covered in Issue 7.

I think we should close Issue 75, but we should open new issues for the 
specific subtopics covered in the original email by Adrian Bateman, if 
they are not already covered by an issue. The issues might end up being 
quickly closed, but at least this acknowledges Microsoft's feedback.

I'll be glad to go through the feedback email, the existing issues, and 
make note of where an issue already exists for an item, and open a new 
issue if one doesn't exist. If this is acceptable, than I don't see why 
Issue 75 should stay open.

Shelley

(Sorry, Sam, first email went to you alone)
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:12:28 GMT

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