- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:35:04 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>
On 09/08/2010 02:42 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Sam Ruby wrote: >> On 03/24/2010 02:57 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: >>> >>> ISSUE-41 >>> ======== >>> >>> SUMMARY >>> There is no problem and the proposed remedy is to change nothing. >> >> The chairs have reviewed this proposal, and determined that it does not meet >> the standards for a Change Proposal. >> >> This rationale does not address the use cases listed in the rationale >> described by the other two change proposals[1][2] on this topic. > > So a proposal to _not_ change the spec has to cover all the use cases > covered by every other proposal, but a proposal to change the spec just > has to defend its change? Separate counter proposals for the other two change proposals would also be acceptable. The requirement is for each proposal (whether it is currently embodied in the draft spec or not) to fully document the rationale and impacts for the relevant design decisions involved. The only requirement that is relaxed for "null" change proposals is the need to specify a detailed set of edit instructions. - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 19:35:36 UTC