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

Re: ISSUE-41: Decentralized-extensibility - Straw Poll for Objections

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 07:40:02 -0400
Message-ID: <4C9C8E12.4030604@intertwingly.net>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: "Michael Smith (tm)" <mike@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 09/24/2010 07:12 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Sam Ruby, Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:28:42 -0400:
>> On 09/23/2010 08:45 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>> Sam Ruby, Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:49:29 -0400:
>>>> On 09/23/2010 07:19 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>>>> Sam Ruby, Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:12:51 -0400:
>>>>>> The poll is available here, and it will run through Wednesday,
>>>>>> October 7th(*):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-41-objection-poll/
>>>>>
>>>>> Co-Chairs and Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>> Reading the socalled "zero-edit" proposal ("heavy-edit" would have been
>>>>> more accurate names), I discovered info that we have not had in time.
>>>>
>>>> The only relevant question at this point is whether the poll should
>>>> be withdrawn, proposals updated, and then reissued.
>>>
>>> I suggest that it should be delayed, yes.
>>>
>>> ....
>>>>> Firstly: The proposal referred to as 'zero-edit', consequently speaks
>>>>> about Microddata as a "feature" (a feature of HTML), while whereas
>>>>> HTML5+RDFa is presented as "applicable specification"extension. Draw
>>>>> you own conclusions. Even if I would have agreed with that proposal,
>>>>> those comments would hinder me from adding any support.
>>>>
>>>> *shrug*  People sometimes believe strange things that are at odds
>>>> with reality.  Unless those words appear in the document someplace, I
>>>> don't think that is relevant.
>>>
>>> It appears in the document many places:
>>
>> Feel free to object to it.
>
> "Unless those words appear in the document someplace"
>
> We are supposed to give technically related response, but you suggest I
> use space in the poll to object to a political matter.

You seem to be objecting to the change proposal.  There is a box for 
such objections.  If this objection is relevant, it will be considered. 
  In any case, I will strongly discourage this point being discussed 
further on this list.

> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/thread.html
>>>
>>> That commit is about "vendor--". I complained that it is impossible to
>>> find "_vendor-". (I had already found "vendor--".) I'm interested if
>>> you find _vendor.
>>
>> I continue to see _vendor- on that page.
>>
>> $ curl -s
>>
> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/thread.html
>> | grep _vendor- | wc -l
>> 1
>
> I take that as a signal that you, like me, are unable to find the time
> when _vendor was inserted into the spec. (That _vendor since was
> changed to vendor-- is undisputed.)

Perhaps the following commit is the one you are looking for:

http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/004101.html

>> We have current allowed for two weeks.  Can you state how much time
>> you feel would be necessary to study this proposal?
>
> Those two weeks are for the voters. I think the CP authors should get
> 3-4 weeks to see if they need to update their proposals. Thereafter,
> the poll can be restarted. I will also consider reactivating my own
> proposal.

I just want to be clear: you are asking for a delay because somebody 
*might* want to create yet another proposal?

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 24 September 2010 11:40:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:19 UTC