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

Re: Solicitation of objections

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:24:16 -0500
Message-ID: <4D5481B0.8030301@intertwingly.net>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: public-html@w3.org
On 02/10/2011 06:49 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>> On 02/05/2011 05:33 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05.02.2011 02:31, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it is a separate issue. As such, I've filed a bug for Philip:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11984
>>>>
>>>> Ok, fixed.
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> I disagree with this resolution, and therefor ask the chairs to instruct
>>> the editor to revert the changes.
>>>
>>> To those who didn't follow before: this introduces media type sniffing
>>> for<video>.
>>
>> At this point, the chairs are asking the WG if anyone else wants to see this
>> reverted.  If you have a technical (i.e., non-procedural) objection to the
>> approach taken by the resolution to this bug, we are asking you to indicate
>> such by adding a brief comment to bug itself.
>
> Should people that support this change also voice their support? It
> seems hard to gauge if the change increased or decreased consensus
> otherwise. (I don't have enough data to have a strong opinion on this,
> but I would imagine other people at mozilla might).

At this point, we are soliciting objections.  Based on the responses (or 
lack thereof) that we receive we may make additional requests.

> / Jonas

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 11 February 2011 00:24:49 UTC

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