Re: Change Proposals and FPWD Resolutions

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> Krzysztof Maczyński wrote:
>>> As Sam said, you will be free to state objections to *both* proposals
>>> on the table, if you feel you cannot live with either, and feel you
>>> can state strong objections to both.
>>
>> Manu, given the concerns expressed by Shelley and me about
>> granularity of Change Proposals, would you like now to
>> revert your Change Proposal wrt. this?
>
> The conciseness/granularity argument resonated with me - it would be
> good to keep the change proposals focused on accomplishing one thing at
> a time. I was attempting to short circuit the process with what I see as
> inevitable... but I can see how others may not want to make those
> assumptions.
>
> By not automatically publishing a HTML+Microdata FPWD, we don't block
> Microdata from making progress in any way, so I'm happy to revert the
> Change Proposal to only address the aspect of splitting Microdata from
> the HTML5 specification proper.
>
>> If not, would it be OK with you if I created my own
>> Change Proposal almost identical to yours but different in
>> this point?
>
> Even though I'm reverting it, if you or anyone else in this working
> group is still not happy with the Change Proposal (for whatever reason),
> feel free to modify it and submit your revision for consideration.
>
> I'll submit the no-auto-publishing revision in the next few hours.
>

Virtual holiday cookies to you in thanks, Manu.


> -- manu

Shelley

Received on Wednesday, 9 December 2009 20:12:32 UTC