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

Re: rel=archives

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 14:39:02 +0100
Message-ID: <4D6E4876.3060206@gmx.de>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 02.03.2011 14:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 03/02/2011 03:28 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 01.03.2011 08:25, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> However, it seems that the accepted proposal suggests not changing a
>>>> few of the relations about what the ISSUE originally was opened; we
>>>> may have to revisit them.
>>>
>>> The Change Proposal adopted is
>>> this:<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Nov/0042.html>.
>>>
>>> Its Details section says:
>>>
>>>>>> Remove all prose relating to the following link types: index, up,
>>>>>> first, last.
>>>
>>> This would include, by my understanding, removal of the Synonyms
>>> sections of those definitions, which include the synonyms "top",
>>> "contents", "toc", "begin", "start" and "end".
>>> ...
>>
>> Sigh.
>>
>> So the Ian has also removed the relation "archives", which was a
>> separate bug, not discussed at all, and already is in the IANA registry.
>>
>> See <http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5924&to=5925>.
>>
>> I believe this change doesn't increase consensus, also is not subject to
>> the WG decision, and thus should be reverted.
>
> I don't follow this logic.
>
>  From a process perspective, you are claiming that Ian made a change
> that is not subject to the WG decision, was not discussed at all, and
> yet was a separate bug. In the first case, it is unclear to me why you
> are choosing to report such in a reply thread to the decision. In the
 > ...

Because the change was made as a result of the WG decision for 
ISSUE-128. See <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11486#c5>:

"Rationale: I removed it entirely, based on the precedent the chairs 
established for rel=index."

 > ...
> latter cases, if there was a bug report (I have yet to find one), it

(see above)

> constitutes discussion; and if there was not, we have yet to require bug
> reports. If you would like to discuss this further, I would suggest that
> you either open a bug on the Decision Policy, or add a comment to this bug:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12029
>
> On the technical side, all we have here is an assertion that this
> doesn't increase consensus. To date I have heard zero technical
> objections to this change and would not be predisposed to considering
> any request for revert without at least one clearly stated objection.

The change originally was requested by Anne. Nobody in the bug agreed 
with the request, and even Anne changed his mind. See the history in the 
bug.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 13:39:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:23 GMT