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:

Here is the link to the changes with the chairs decision applied:

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:


> 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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:25:58 UTC