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

BUG 8818 - lack of rationale

From: Shelley Powers <shelleypowers@burningbird.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:55:04 -0600
Message-ID: <4B777418.5050405@burningbird.net>
To: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Ian marked bug 8818 as WONTFIX, with the following:

"EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to 
CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, 
please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and 
suggest
title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: I'm happy to remove this attribute from the W3C HTML5 
specification
if that's what the working group wants. The last time I removed a 
feature based
on a bug report such as this, I started a minor war, however, so I 
suggest that
you raise this via the change proposal process if you really feel this way."


I do not consider this to be a good rationale. I will raise this to an 
issue, but it's difficult enough writing a change proposal when the 
editor refuses to provide a decent reason why he is marking the bugs as 
WONTFIX. If he has a good reason for keeping this item, then I would at 
least know whether I should raise this to an issue, and if so, where I 
should focus my arguments.

Frankly, I could put, "Remove srcdoc because putting markup into an 
attribute is problematic and ugly as hell", and will have provided 
better rationale than what was just provided. Actually, shorten that to, 
"srcdoc is ugly as hell", and my rationale will be superior.

Shelley
Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 10:28:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:01 GMT