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

Re: ISSUE-81: representation-vs-resource - Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:20:33 +0100
Message-ID: <4B530EA1.908@gmx.de>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> ...
>> The clear and reasonable deadline I am asking for is that, when you
>> have assigned a deadline for the last blocker issue, then assign
>> the same deadline for this one.  What's the harm in that?
> 
> I would be very concerned if everybody took that position.

That would be a problem. For now although it seems to be hypothetical 
problem.

> I am also concerned that if nobody else sees this as enough of an issue 
> to work on a change proposal.

I think it is an issue, and so does the TAG (as far as I understand 
their feedback, see 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0024.html>).

This change proposal is (or would be) really different from others in 
that it requires touching many many parts of the spec, and once this is 
done, it may have to be repeated again once sloppy terminology gets back in.

So maybe a compromise would be to allow the change proposal to restrict 
itself to the terminology section and one other section where it would 
have impact. Changing the remainder of the spec could then be done in a 
second step.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 17 January 2010 13:21:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:57 GMT