RE: Possible Compromise solution for namespaces in HTML5

Sam Ruby wrote:
> Shelley Powers wrote:

[snip]

> > Thanks for the answer Rob.
> >
> > Can I make a suggestion?
> >
> > We have a new formal procedure in place now for requesting changes or
> > additions to the HTML5 specification. It begins with a bug, then goes
> > to an issue (if the bug isn't satisfactorily resolved), and then from
> > there.
> >
> > Would it be possible for you to either attach this as a formal
> > proposal, or counter proposal, to an existing issue? I believe there
> > is an issue on decentralized extensibility, but not one on
> > centralized, so you may need to, first, submit a bug, and then you
> can
> > attach your original email as a change proposal to that bug.
> >
> > I'm not trying to quash this discussion, just trying to ensure your
> > proposal is given due diligence and full consideration.
> >
> > HTML WG chairs, would this not be a correct approach?
> 
> Short answer: Yes, definitely.
> 
> Longer answer: sometimes it makes sense to have a discussion before
> proposing a concrete change (using the process that Shelley outlined
> above, and Maciej detailed at
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html).  That's
> entirely OK, it is just that all participants need to be aware of the
> fact that the conclusion of discussion is assumed to be "no change is
> required" unless a request is made via the documented process.

Now done. This proposal is now in bugzilla as bug 8357.

As Sam says, I think in this case it was useful to discuss the idea first to see if it had any holes, before creating a formal bug report.

[snip]

-Rob