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: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 16:53:00 -0500
Message-ID: <l2v643cc0271004061453t6c2e289x8e316a616a2f801@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 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
>


Ah. Not quite the same as my situation, then.

I guess if folks want to toss a one-size-fits-all counter back, will
probably make my job of editing my change proposals based on feedback
a whole lot easier.

Thanks Julian

Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 21:53:34 UTC

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