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

Re: ISSUE 86 and removing atom transform section - focusing

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:52:26 -0700
Message-ID: <j2qdd0fbad1004161752z2aab2b11ka65142fc0cc5b8fa@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, sroussey@network54.com, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Now, to Tab: by definition issue 86 is a Last Call blocker.  As such, I
> believe that you have already said that you would support removing this
> algorithm, and presumably would be even more OK with doing so under the
> conditions that Maciej originally stated[1] where this function could could
> come back either as a separate spec or into the main draft -- if and when
> the technical issues are worked out to everyone's satisfaction.  As such, my
> suggestion is that you consider lifting your objection now; there truly is
> no "summarily" about the removal, nor has anybody suggested any irreversible
> actions at this point.  All we are saying is that this algorithm is not
> fully baked just yet, and could benefit from some implementation experience
> prior to standardization.

Under my working definition, it doesn't become a blocker until Last
Call actually threatens to occur.  If it is the opinion of the chairs
that we are indeed very close to declaring Last Call, and so this
issue stands a reasonable chance of delaying that, then I'll be okay
with dropping it.  If the chairs believe there are still sufficient
issues blocking LC that this issue, if resolved in a reasonable amount
of time, will not delay LC, then I'll continue to oppose dropping this
section from the w3c HTML5 spec unless/until the opposite becomes
obvious.

~TJ
Received on Saturday, 17 April 2010 00:53:13 GMT

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