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 13:25:57 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001081125o6fdb7ekf2c1b3afad57cbed@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML Weekly WG <public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:22 AM, 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.
>>>
>>> It appears to me that it was not distributed. Not sure why it is, but
>>> cc'ing public-html does not seem to yield the expected results of
>>> having the list receive bugmail.
>>>
>>> / Jonas
>>>
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Nov/0634.html
>
> Yes, but no other emails has been sent to the list. Despite the fact
> that you cc'ed the public-html list on the bug.
>
> / Jonas
>

How many emails is enough, Jonas?

Is there a magic number? Does it have to be equivalent to what
happened with Microdata, and is currently happening with summary?

Do we have to send emails to the group that state "No, people I REALLY
mean it! I want to remove details! Talk to me!"

I'm sorry, I know I'm coming across as facetious, and your concerns
are valid. But we're damned if we do--for cluttering up the email
list-- and damned if we don't.

Shelley
Received on Friday, 8 January 2010 19:26:30 UTC

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