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

Re: ISSUE-93 (details): Return Details Element [HTML 5 spec]

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:34:22 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001081034h496f3cbet47f7dc235cda72f7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: HTML Weekly WG <public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, HTML Weekly Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>
>>> ISSUE-93 (details): Return Details Element [HTML 5 spec]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/93
>>
>> This issue was opened in violation of the process and should be closed
>> without prejudice. The bug in question was reopened for reconsideration,
>> meaning the next step in the process is 5.c, not 5.d:
>>
>>   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8379
>>
>
> You have a point. No new information was added, which is justification
> for re-opening a bug.
>
> However, people have stated they were unaware of this bug. I did cc
> the HTML WG on the bug, but evidently, the email to the group was
> ignored, or missed.
>
> We'll have to leave it up to the co-chairs to make a decision on this
> one. My inclination is to ensure that people do have a chance to
> respond, even though you and I are in agreement.
>

Ah, I checked the procedure again.

I see what you're saying, it should go back to the first step, and be
treated like a new bug.

Well, OK, I can close the issue. It will end up being an issue, I'm
fairly sure, but we'll follow the procedure.


>> --
>> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
>
> Shelley
>
Received on Friday, 8 January 2010 18:34:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:12 UTC