W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-93, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSSUE-97: (new semantic elements/attributes) - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 23:36:34 +0200
Message-ID: <4BBBA962.2030508@gmx.de>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 06.04.2010 23:30, Shelley Powers wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>> On 04/06/2010 05:10 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not going to formally object to this interesting segue in the
>>> procedure, but I believe that anyone that writes one counter to all is
>>> doing so with the assumption that the co-chairs and group have already
>>> made a decision regardless of the strengths of the argument. This
>>> assumption is more likely trigger me to file a Formal Objection if my
>>> changes are rejected.
>>
>> Issues 1 and 2 were decided together.
>>
>
> Same counter-proposal? There's been so many lately, I can't remember
> what was what.
> ...

Issue #1 was about the protocol used for a/@ping. Issue #2 was about UI 
requirements.

Roy wrote a change proposal addressing both by removing the feature 
completely.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 21:37:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:16 UTC