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

Re: change proposal for issue-86, was: ISSUE-86 - atom-id-stability - Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 21:50:58 +0200
Message-ID: <4BBF8522.9070204@gmx.de>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On 09.04.2010 21:11, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>> On 04/09/2010 10:04 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>
>>> Note: the removal of this part should be applied to all variants of the
>>> spec, be it in W3C space or not.
>>
>> Paraphrasing Maciej[1]:
>>
>> As a side note, be aware that a Change Proposal cannot stop anyone from
>> proposing any additional drafts they want. A Change Proposal can only change
>> existing drafts or propose new drafts. Thus, the sentence quoted above
>> cannot be fulfilled by adopting a Change Proposal.  We[2] suggest removing
>> this sentence for clarity. If this Change Proposal is adopted by the Working
>> group without that sentence being removed, then that specific sentence will
>> be considered inoperative.
>
> Additionally, I don't see how a W3C decision could affect non-W3C
> documents, such as the WhatWG copy, which it seems like the above text
> is trying to mandate?

The point I was trying to make is that if the section is removed from 
the W3C spec, but lives on somewhere else, it'll continue to be buggy 
and will need to be fixed. I understand that it won't be under this WG's 
control but thought worth pointing out.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 19:51:48 UTC

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