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

Re: minutes: HTML WG Weekly 21 May 2009 [draft]

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 23:30:35 -0700
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <CF004DA1-3675-4AAA-A096-5A0CAD6D3598@apple.com>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>

On May 23, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> On Fri, 22 May 2009 23:57:41 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak  
> <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>> On May 22, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>> I read these minutes and I was unable to discern a decision among  
>>>> the options I proposed:
>>>> 1) Mark up examples more clearly as such in the Design Principles  
>>>> document.
>>>> 2) Delete all examples from the Design Principles document.
>>>> 3) Something else if neither of these options is acceptable.
>>>> I will do #1 unless I hear otherwise in the next few days.
>>> The general perception I got from the call was that this document  
>>> was useful as a historical guide, and as a Working Draft, and it  
>>> should remain as such as some people find it helpful (others may  
>>> not), but should not progress any further.
>>> But as you were not present on the call, no decision was made.   
>>> David Singer volunteered to get with you.
>> I think the flaw identified in the document should be fixed, even  
>> if it remains a Working Draft. Would anyone like to make an  
>> argument for not fixing it? Or for doing something other than my  
>> proposed remedy?
> I don't see ay reason not to fix it,

I'm going to fix it as soon as I can coordinate with Anne.

> but given the nature of the document, it might be even easier to  
> publish a new version that simply has a changed status, clarifying  
> that the group has no plan to take this any further...

Hmm. The original document was published as a Working Draft on track  
to become a W3C Note by a lopsided vote of the Working Group in favor.  
If we are going to reverse that decision and decide not to ever  
publish it as a Note, then I think we need something more than  
informal discussion on a conference call.

So, I would object to publishing a version that says the group has no  
plans to take the document further, until and unless we have clear  
consensus on that point.

Received on Sunday, 24 May 2009 06:31:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:45 UTC