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

Re: noted 3 issues re: time/data (was Re: minutes for HTML WG f2f, 2011-11-04, part 1)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:47:49 -0500
Message-ID: <4EC19A95.6030701@intertwingly.net>
To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
CC: public-html@w3.org, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
On 11/14/2011 05:10 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 11/12/2011 07:51 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> Here is an iteration of the above issues based on your suggested
>> improvements:
>> 1. Enhance and simplify the time element. A change proposal to enhance
>> and simplify the time element based on use-cases and needs documented
>> to date:
>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik/time_element
>> 2. Add a data element. A change proposal to introduce a simple data
>> element for use with microformats, microdata, RDFa based on use-cases
>> of the general class of human vs. machine data publishing:
>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik/data_element
>> 3. Drop the pubdate attribute. A change proposal to drop the pubdate
>> attribute as part of completing the removal of the Atom conversion
>> algorithm which itself hasn't been a part of the W3C HTML5
>> specification for over a year:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0000.html
>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik/drop_pubdate
> The current state of these proposals is that they have less detail in
> the "Proposal Details" section than we normally require. This is not a
> problem if there is no contention. So the way I would like to proceed is
> to:
> 1) Open up three issues per the above, and so so before this week's
> telecon.
> 2) Immediately issue a Call for Consensus on all three change proposals.
> 3) Close by Amicable Consensus any issues for which we don't get
> pushback sufficient to convince the chairs that there will likely be a
> counter proposal.
> 4) Proceed with a normal call for consensus on whatever issues remain
> (if any).

Correction: proceed with a normal call for >>proposals<< on whatever 
issues remain.

> Does anybody object to proceeding in this fashion?
> - Sam Ruby

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 22:49:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:18 UTC