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

(unknown charset) Re: Handling of non-escalated pre-Last Call bugs

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:58:02 +0100
To: (unknown charset) Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Cc: (unknown charset) "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net) <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com) <mjs@apple.com>
Message-ID: <20110127125802750720.37ac5d93@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Paul Cotton, Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:37:10 +0000:
> There are 11 pre-Last Call bugs that were re-opened but never 
> escalated into WG issues by the Jan 22 deadline [1].  See the 
> Bugzilla query: http://tinyurl.com/6dvhs5s 
> This is a warning that the WG co-chairs plan to convert these bugs to 
> Last Call bugs by changing the Component field of each of these bugs.
> Please let us know if anyone has a reason why we should not convert 
> these bugs to Last Call bugs.

Converting them to comments, what does that mean? That the respective 
editor is less obliged to work on them? What about bugs we file from 
now on, will all them be comments and the respective editor not 
required to work on them?

> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html 

Regarding those that I feel relates to myself:

Bug 9965: Eliot has corrected it (but failed to say it in the bug (yet).
Bug 10788, about @srcdoc, relates to bug 9965. No reason to track.
Bug 10618: I just asked the editor to do what I said he was willing to 

Bug 10518: I think is bug should be linked to ISSUE-157.
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2011 11:58:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:08 UTC