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

Re: noted 3 issues re: time/data (was Re: minutes for HTML WG f2f, 2011-11-04, part 1)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 11:36:37 -0500
Message-ID: <4EE23915.6050109@intertwingly.net>
To: "Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com" <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
CC: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 12/09/2011 10:45 AM, Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com wrote:
> Sam, does it all mean something like following in essence?
>
> << Returning TIME element itself to the HTML spec as well as current
> enhancements by Tantek
> (http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik/time_element ) are approved
> by the HTML WG. At the same time, @pubdate attribute and need for new
> DATA element are yet subjects to decide.
>>>

Not exactly.  All three are subjects yet to be decided.  There is still 
time to object to Tantek's proposal and provide other proposals.  The 
only thing we have done is to once again allow the editor's draft to 
reflect the work in progress for the <time> element.

Furthermore, this is from the Status section of the same document:

The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working Draft does 
not imply that all of the participants in the W3C HTML working group 
endorse the contents of the specification. Indeed, for any section of 
the specification, one can usually find many members of the working 
group or of the W3C as a whole who object strongly to the current text, 
the existence of the section at all, or the idea that the working group
should even spend time discussing the concept of that section.

Background on revert requests can be found here:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/revert-requests.html

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 9 December 2011 16:37:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:28 UTC