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

Re: The plan for ISSUE-131 / bug 11239

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 15:55:21 -0400
Message-ID: <4DC05DA9.3030006@intertwingly.net>
To: public-html@w3.org
On 05/03/2011 02:46 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2011, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> We have had two proposed diffs to resolve this issue:
>>
>> 1) Rich's diff, attached here:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0657.html -- so
>> far, no one has objected that the diff does not correctly implement the
>> WG Decision on ISSUE-131.
>
> You don't consider this an objection?:
>
>     http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11239#c21
>
> Rich's diff has very little bearing on the CP and the decision.

As the Change Proposal linked to an actual diff, the provided diff has 
considerable bearing on what was proposed.

> I most
> strongly object to the working group adopting text that has as many
> mistakes as that text,

Mistakes that can be resolved via consensus (example, the name of the
caretBlinkRate API or changing a negative number into minus one) or via 
separate bug reports.

> especially considering it was not even considered
> by the chairs when making the decision,

Every objection provided by Change Proposals and via the survey was 
considered.

> and considering that the CP's
> details section does not even mention the majority of the changes in the
> diff. It would be most unproper,

The process we are talking about here is not materially different than 
the process by which we evaluate "null" change proposals: we seek 
objections to the actual spec text that people propose.  We have at 
times issued decisions that excluded text that people included over 
which there was no rationale and we did get an objection.

This is not the case here.

> and far more importantly, would cause
> massive damage to the accessibility features in the canvas specification.

If you have new information, we can consider reopening the issue.  But 
first we need to have this decision applied by May 8th.

>> 2) Ian's diff, attached to
>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11239 -- this has had a
>> series of revisions based on comments. The latest version still has some
>> objections from Rich:
>> <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11239#c30>.
>
> Ah, nobody told me there was new material. I have responded.
>
> (I go though bugs in the order they were least-recently modified, so if
> you would like me to jump to a specific bug, please let me know.)

I don't see a new diff there.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 19:56:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:24 UTC