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

Re: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-101 us-ascii-ref Change Proposal to replace ASCII reference

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <927371592.538472.1277365626250.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:18 UTC