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

Re: Revert request for r5981, and moving forward on ISSUE-129

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:31:38 -0400
Message-ID: <4DA3AB7A.1000606@intertwingly.net>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
CC: 'Maciej Stachowiak' <mjs@apple.com>, 'Richard Schwerdtfeger' <schwer@us.ibm.com>, 'Steve Faulkner' <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, 'Paul Cotton' <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, 'HTMLWG WG' <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org
On 04/11/2011 06:56 PM, John Foliot wrote:
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> We have two requests to revert the change attempting to implement the
>> ISSUE-129 decision, specifically,
>> <http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5980&to=5981>. There seems
>> to be ongoing debate about the correct changes to make. Given the two
>> requests and the ongoing controversy, we are inclined to grant the
> revert
>> request. At the same time, because this is a WG decision, it is
> necessary
>> to ultimately make a change to implement the decision.
>>
>> Therefore:
>>
>> 1) We request timely revert of revision 5981 as a temporary measure:
>>   <http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5980&to=5981>
>> 2) We ask that any further approaches to applying this decision should
> be
>> posted to the WG first for review; either full spec text or a diff
> posted to
>> the WG would be sufficient.
>> 3) If there are inconsistencies or unintended consequences that go
> beyond
>> matters of interpreting the decision, we request that anyone identifying
> such
>> should file bugs.
>
> While I applaud the Chairs for ensuring we get this right, I am concerned
> that a specific timeline has not been articulated here. Can we have the
> Chairs assurances that this will be dealt with and resolved *before* the
> May 22 deadline?
>
> I think that it would be helpful if, when requesting "...further
> approaches to applying this decision should be posted..." that a deadline
> for those postings be identified, and that a revised decision date also be
> indicated. Having been burned once before on a 'confusion' around states
> and dates, I would like to ensure that this Working Group not be subjected
> to that kind of imprecision again.

Note that Maciej didn't specify who needs to provide the full spec text 
or diff.  Last time Steve turned the request around in 21 hours, 54 
minutes, and 12 seconds.  Anybody care to set a new record? :-)

Seriously, if we can agree on a diff this week, there is no reason that 
this change can't make the April 22nd draft, let alone May 22nd.

> Cheers!
>
> JF

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2011 01:32:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:27 GMT