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

Re: ISSUE 86 and removing atom transform section - focusing

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:27:50 -0700
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, sroussey@network54.com, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <BE27BE0E-FC5A-4AE0-BE22-AA49B7A0DCD9@apple.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Hi Tab,

On Apr 17, 2010, at 6:15 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

>
> On Apr 17, 2010, at 8:38 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry; I agree with the sentiment, but don't think that this falls
>> into that bucket.  I'm not holding something up "until Last Call",  
>> I'm
>> holding it up because I think it can be resolved in a better way, and
>> there is active discussion underway involving that resolution.  My
>> sentiment was just that I'm willing to give it up, even with that
>> discussion, if you guys think we're otherwise close to LC.
>>
>> So, rather than "can we delay resolving this until it becomes a
>> problem", I'm saying "I'm okay with cutting resolution short if it
>> becomes a problem".
>
> If we can get consensus on a different solution, that's fine, so  
> long as the solution is in a matter of weeks, not months. Right now,  
> it seems like "remove Atom conversion" is the proposal that is  
> closest to consensus, but I do see the other proposals getting at  
> least some interest.

This is a reminder that, if we don't see signs of consensus on some  
other alternative soon (within a week or two), the chairs will once  
again pursue the option of removing Atom conversion from the spec. We  
haven't seen any discussion since this exchange. Thus, we do not see  
signs of any other consensus emerging.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 04:28:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:08 GMT