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

Re: ISSUE-145 codecs-vs-octet - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:08:45 +0100
Message-ID: <4D4BDE3D.6070808@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 04.02.2011 11:32, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:13:25 +0100, Julian Reschke
> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> See
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jan/0410.html> -
>> it would be nice if the chairs could clarify whether the
>> counter-proposal actually is acceptable - I believe it is not.
>
> It affects the same text. If he wants to make this change what other
> path is there? If someone writes a no-change counter proposal and the WG

He could raise a separate bug.

> endorses that or endorses your proposal having a later issue remove all
> that text seems disingenuous.

Not necessarily, if the WG decides that.

What I have trouble with is the situation where a bug asks for an 
editorial clarification and is hijacked to remove a certain aspect of 
the spec altogether.

I have no problem with discussing this, and the WG deciding on it, but I 
believe piggybacking it on issue 145 is problematic.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 4 February 2011 11:09:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:22 GMT