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

Re: ISSUE 86 and removing atom transform section - focusing

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 04:40:03 -0400
Message-ID: <4BC973E3.6070106@intertwingly.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, sroussey@network54.com, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 04/16/2010 08:52 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> 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.

I happen to believe that if everybody in this working group is allowed 
to hold up even one issue per person until we are close to declaring 
Last Call, we will never get to Last Call.

I will encourage the co-chairs to push forward with steps that will 
produce either an amicable resolution or a decision as soon as the 
discussion stops providing new information.

As for me, I can live with either of the following:


I could also live with the following, should it make it into a change 


I also would endorse any change proposal which splits Atom generation 
into a separate spec, should one such change proposal be written.

> ~TJ

- Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 17 April 2010 08:40:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC