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.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:03 UTC