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: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:46:40 -0700
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <31C5A96B-A35C-4590-AED1-B3D403A6DC8A@apple.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>

On Apr 6, 2010, at 2:30 PM, 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.
> Never mind, I just wasn't aware that we did have a precedent in this  
> regard.

Same Change Proposal for both, and there never was a counter-proposal,  
we adopted the proposal that was submitted.

Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 21:47:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:07 GMT