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

Re: Issue-72: Microdata/RDFa: Chairs Solicit *COUNTER* proposals

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:55:30 -0400
Message-ID: <4AE6FBD2.3020802@intertwingly.net>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Current status is that we have a Working Group draft that contains 
>> Microdata in the HTML5 specification, and a Change Proposal to split 
>> Microdata out into a separate document:
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0773.html
>>
>> The current draft was produced before we instituted the current process 
>> requiring rationale in commit messages, so if there are anybody who 
>> prefers the draft as it is (or even wants to make a different Change 
>> Proposal), what we need is a Change Proposal (possibly with "zero edits" 
>> as the Proposal Details), but with similar level of detail in the other 
>> sections to what Manu produced.
>>
>> If none is provided by December 2nd, we proceed with a Call for 
>> Consensus on Manu's Change Proposal.
> 
> What happens if there's no other change proposal, but Manu's doesn't have 
> consensus?

Given that I don't see any reason that needs to be the case in this 
instance, I'll treat this as a hypothetical question.

What happens if somebody proposes a change with solid technical 
rationale, and  one or more members of the group say they don't like it, 
but can't provide technical rationale for their objections?  The answer 
is that we will proceed as Maciej said[1], and the option with the best 
rationale will be selected.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0957.html
Received on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 13:56:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:51 GMT