W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-131 caret-location-api

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 02:24:17 +0200
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110412022417077925.2cd77a4b@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Tab Atkins Jr., Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:06:31 -0700:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>> *** Decision of the Working Group ***

>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0682.html


>> Of the Change Proposals before us, this proposal, with the noted
>> exceptions, has drawn the weaker objections.
> 
> I'm confused about this decision from a process perspective.  This
> decision adopts something that wasn't expressed in any of the Change
> Proposals - it's one of the CPs, minus some exceptions.
> 
> In other Decisions, though, similar attempts to provide improved
> suggestions in the comments (somebody objects to a CP as written, but
> wouldn't object if certain changes were made) have been rejected with
> the reason that the decision is purposely limited to choosing between
> the submitted change proposals.
> 
> What's the criteria for the decision being limited only to submitted
> CPs versus allowing some leeway in synthesizing a decision different
> from any of the submitted CPs?

FWIW, this decision also adopted a CP with an exception: 
http://www.w3.org/mid/4D6C5A37.3070704@intertwingly.net

-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2011 00:24:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:24 UTC