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

Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-153 link-external by Amicable Resolution

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:17:59 -0400
Message-ID: <4E4938A7.7090008@intertwingly.net>
To: public-html@w3.org
At this time, we find that we have consensus on the following proposal 
for ISSUE-153:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0317.html

Bug 11181 will be REOPENED and marked as WGDecision.  Once the editor 
has made the change, ISSUE-153 will be CLOSED.

- Sam Ruby

On 08/03/2011 10:40 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Resending with a corrected subject line.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-153 link-external - Chairs Solicit Alternate
> Proposals or Counter-Proposals
> Resent-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:20:38 +0000
> Resent-From: public-html@w3.org
> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:20:07 -0400
> From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
> To: HTML WG LIST <public-html@w3.org>
>
> On 06/28/2011 11:01 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> 'link type "external" either not useful or underspecified'
>>
>> The current status for this issue:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/153
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-153
>>
>> At the present time we have one change proposal to remove link type
>> "external":
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0317.html
>>
>> At this time the Chairs would also like to solicit additional Change
>> Proposals (possibly with "zero edits" as the Proposal Details), in case
>> anyone would like to advocate the status quo or a different change than
>> the specific one in the existing Change Proposals.
>>
>> If no counter-proposals or alternate proposals are received by July
>> 28th, 2011, we proceed to evaluate the change proposal that we have
>> received to date.
>
> As we have received no acceptable counter-proposals or alternate
> proposals, the chairs are issuing a call for consensus on the proposal
> that we do have. If anybody would like to raise an objection during
> this time, we will require them to accompany their objection with a
> concrete and complete change proposal.
>
> If no objections are raised to this call by August 10th 2011, we will
> direct the editor to make the proposed change, and will only consider
> subsequently reopening this issue based on new information and a
> complete change proposal based on the spec's contents as it exists after
> this change is applied.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
Received on Monday, 15 August 2011 15:18:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:27 UTC