- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:32:03 -0500
- To: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Michael(tm) Smith<mike@w3.org> wrote: > Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, 2009-06-24 00:20 +0000: > >> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Shelley Powers wrote: >> I'm not gatekeeper. I'm just another editor. The chairs are the ones with >> the authority to declare consensus, which decides what gets published. I >> certainly have no power to reject another draft. >> >> (The browser vendors are the ultimate gatekeepers, of course, in that they >> get to decide what actually gets implemented. It's our role as editors to >> make sure we do what they want, otherwise our documents are nothing but >> rather dry science fiction.) > > Browser vendors may collectively be the de facto ultimate > gatekeepers as far as implementation decisions about features of > the language that require rendering in browsers, or some other > kind of associated behavior in browsers -- but they're certainly > not the ultimate gatekeepers as far as decisions about document > conformance. > > In particular, they're not gatekeepers at all as far as deciding > whether certain existing or proposed elements or attributes that > don't have any associated behavior in browsers should be part of > the language or not -- or whether they should be optional or > required, or how their semantics and contents/values are defined. > > This working group is the direct owner for those kinds of decisions. That's a good clarification. Thanks. Shelley > > And as far as publication of any W3C standard related to those, if > there's any ultimate gatekeeper, it's the W3C Director. > > --Mike > > -- > Michael(tm) Smith > http://people.w3.org/mike/ >
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 03:32:39 UTC