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

Re: Change Proposal for ISSUE-101 (us-ascii-ref)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 05:34:10 -0400
Message-ID: <4BBC5192.8020302@intertwingly.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 04/07/2010 05:12 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 24.03.2010 05:55, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> On Mar 3, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> - That being said, I think a reference to ISO/IEC 646 would be
>>>> acceptable as well; this one is re-published by ECMA as ECMA-006,
>>>> which is available online
>>>> (<http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-006.htm>)
>>>
>>> Ian, would a reference to ISO/IEC 646 aka ECMA-006 be acceptable to you?
>>
>> I think debating this is a waste of our time and am not willing to get
>> drawn into a discussion of the topic.
>  > ...
>
> I read that as "no".
>
> This was two weeks ago. Can we please finally have a call for counter
> proposals, or move directly to a call for consensus?

I'll note that we do have a large number of calls for various things 
(proposals, counter proposals, etc) outstanding at the moment.  We also 
have had a number of situations where we have made such calls only to 
find out that the volunteer misses their date and asks for an extension.

I will say that we won't close any issue without either an amicable 
resolution or a decision.  That goes for all issues.  Including this one.

> Best regards, Julian

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 09:34:39 UTC

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