- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
"Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@målform.no> wrote: > Henri Sivonen, Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:37:44 +0300: > > > Rationale > > > > To put spec readers ahead of theoretical purity, spec references > > should be followable in a browser without paywalls when feasible. In > > > the case of ASCII, it is feasible. > > The suggested ECMA pdf meets this rationale. An ECMA PDF is not in Julian's Change Proposal. See point #2 below for explanation why I'm not engaging in discussion about the relative merits of an ECMA PDF. > Given the above, I don't understand what your proposal is about. It > seems like an indifferent change proposal. It is about two things: 1) Not pointing to paywalled or non-Web specs when non-paywalled Web sources with the relevant information exist. 2) Not bikeshedding trivialities wasting the group's and the editor's time but instead upholding the editor's discretion. See also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0404.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0408.html I think it's a failure of the Decision Process that something like ISSUE-101 can be an ISSUE. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 07:47:40 UTC