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: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:56:49 -0400
Message-ID: <7c2a12e20910281056o3d49c624t4b4d751d2255edfa@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> 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.

Just to clarify your suggestion, the editor would still be the one who
decides how to respond to bugs filed in the W3C Bugzilla, right?  So
rather than just committing a change, he would have to create a change
request in the W3C Bugzilla, post a response there accepting the
request, and then commit the change?  I'm not clear on what practical
benefit this offers to anyone.

It also isn't the practice in any other W3C Working Group I'm aware
of.  Editors normally have the right to change Editor's Drafts
unilaterally, which is why they're called Editor's Drafts -- endorsed
only by the editor, not necessarily the working group or the W3C.
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 17:57:29 UTC

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