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 12:37:18 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001081037h2f444963m3720e75f308ae447@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 12:34 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>

I marked the issue as postponed. If the bug does result in resolution
where everyone is happy, we can mark it closed. If not, we can raise
the issue again.

Is this equitable?

Shelley
Received on Friday, 8 January 2010 18:37:47 UTC

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