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

Re: Splitting out sections and submitting bugs (canvas, Microdata, et al) Re: Proposal to publish HTML5 and vocab specs

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:26:41 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270910280926q6aa2f583gaa6c5a935aa9e5fe@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>
>>> I would remove my objection to another heart beat document if the
>>> HTML5 author agrees not to make any additional changes to the document
>>> that can't be specifically tied back to a change request or bug
>>> entered into the W3C bug database. If the document is stable enough to
>>> be a WhatWG document, there shouldn't be anything about the document
>>> that is currently undergoing change _except_ for changes based on
>>> feedback. And that feedback should be documented, formally.
>>>
>>> The changes should not be occurring because of loose discussions in
>>> IRC, or hallways discussions when it comes to that. They shouldn't be
>>> _just_ in the WhatWG database, either, or occurring spontaneously.
>>> There should be a an accountability of changes to the document from
>>> this moment on.
>>>
>>> Is this a fair request to make?
>>
>> Unfortunately, I don't think it is.  I am certain that I could find a
>> half-dozen typos in the document at will at the present time.  I don't
>> believe that we need undue process for routine items.
>> ...
>
> From my point of view, fixing strictly editorial issues would be totally ok.

Agree.

>
> BR, Julian
>

SP
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 16:27:14 UTC

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