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

Re: Applying the ISSUE-131 decision

From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:13:25 -0500
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF44941FD5.08E59CB9-ON86257880.006DEF56-86257880.006F1726@us.ibm.com>



Rich Schwerdtfeger
CTO Accessibility Software Group

public-html-request@w3.org wrote on 04/26/2011 09:14:36 PM:

> From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
> To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
> Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
> Date: 04/26/2011 09:19 PM
> Subject: Applying the ISSUE-131 decision
> Sent by: public-html-request@w3.org
>
>
> Hello Ian,
>
> You have expressed concerns about applying the ISSUE-131 decision
> [1], both on this list and in bugzilla:
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11239#c21
>
> I think it is a valid point that the Change Proposal Details are
> potentially ambiguous. It is not clear whether the numbered list is
> authoritative and the spec text is a suggestion; or if the spec text
> is a suggestion and the numbered list is simply advisory and non-
> authoritative. I interpreted it the former way, although looking at
> it now it seems the latter interpretation may make more sense.
>
Our spec. text is not a suggestion. Per the decision policy bullet 3,
we provided "Exact spec. text for the sections to be changed, a baseline
revision for the version of the spec being changed.

In our change proposal, we marked those sections with a <zzz> and </zzz>

> However, per W3C Process, and notwithstanding your concerns about
> the content, the decision stands until and unless the issue is
> reopened based on new information.
>
> Therefore:
>
> (1) If WG members have objections to something that is in the
> provided spec text and is not mentioned in the numbered list in
> Details or supported in the Rationale of Rich's Change Proposal, we
> believe it is reasonable to make a request to reopen the issue on
> that basis. However, as with other issues subject to a request to
> reopen, we would expect the decision to be applied as-is in the
> meantime. We would also find it acceptable to file follow-up bugs on
> such details.
>
I request this is what is to be done. Here is the link to the changes
detailed in the change proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/att-0129/HTML_Canvas_2DContext20110415.html

Here is the link to the changes with the chairs decision applied:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0657.html

I should note that Ian created counter proposal that brought forth a straw
pole vote for which none
of the additional points Ian included in his patch were even discussed.

> (2) The Chairs at this time are asking for the decision to be
> applied. We would accept Rich's proposed diff, and we would also
> find it acceptable if you provide your own diff based on the
> numbered points and the delta in the decision. We expect *either*
> Rich's diff to be applied *or* an alternate proposed diff to be sent
> to public-html within 48 hours. Otherwise, the Chairs and the Team
> will take more direct means to see that the decision is applied.
>
Ian's diffs should not be accepted. He has gone well beyond the spec.
changes that were decided upon.
Further, there are numerous errors as I have highlighted in my post:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0712.html

Rich

> Regards,
> Maciej
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0271.html
>
>
> P.S. Your objections on the basis of the caret / selection API not
> doing drawing are addressed directly in the decision. As the
> decision states, the case was not made that having nothing
> whatsoever is better than having a non-drawing API; and the
> possibility was left open to upgrade to a drawing API via follow-on
> bugs. That being said, if you have relevant new information on this
> point, the proper next step would be a request to reopen. I mention
> this explicitly because those changes clearly aren't "unsupported by
> the CP and mentioned by the decision", whatever you may think of any
> other details of the text.
>
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2011 20:14:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:28 GMT