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

RE: Call for a poll of the html wg on removal of hgroup was Re: review of hgroup element prior to last call.

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:08:29 -0800 (PST)
To: "'Steve Faulkner'" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "'Paul Cotton'" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "'HTMLWG WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Message-ID: <00c001cbc243$6932ded0$3b989c70$@edu>
Steve Faulkner wrote:

>>Since hgroup has been in the draft for a long
>>time with no significant changes, we are not going to treat this as a
>>post-cutoff change that reduces consensus.
>
>if there is broad agreement that the hgroup text should be removed how is

>that reducing consensus?
>
>>If we have a poll on this topic, it will at best be advisory.
>>Since hgroup has been in the draft for a long
>>time with no significant changes, we are not going to treat this as a
>>post-cutoff change that reduces consensus.
>
>would have useful to know that the chairs will not allow the html working

>group members to make any decisions of this nature in one of the earlier 
>emails directed at the chairs on this issue.

While I agree procedurally that this is more likely a post-Last Call issue
rather than a pre-Last Call issue, does it make it any less of an issue?
Conceptually, isn't Last Call the time to shake out these kinds of issues
and problems? Strikes me that before moving from Last Call to Candidate
Recommendation that this will need to be discussed and addressed, and
consensus formed around the issue no matter when in the actual process it
is done.

Perhaps some clarification from the Chairs on how they intend to address
situations like this moving forward would be helpful?

Just my $0.02

JF
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 19:09:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:22 UTC