W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2012

Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-131: caret-location-api by Amicable Resolution

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:00:38 -0400
Message-ID: <5040A766.8020607@intertwingly.net>
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
CC: Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On 08/22/2012 09:07 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 08/02/2012 12:59 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>>
>> */For these reasons I would ask that the chairs move issue 131 to
>> HTML.next and save proposal
>> /*http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/CaretSelectionRevised*/
>> for
>> review at that time. This will give more time for canvas,
>> contenteditable, web-based IME support, and cross-cutting accessibility
>> support to develop and mature. If the chairs agree to then I would
>> support the chairs decision for HTML5 as a temporary one requiring
>> greater view in the next version, otherwise I will need to formally
>> object to the chairs decision.
>
> We previously vacated the original issue 131 decision, reopened the
> issue, and allowed changes to be made:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Dec/0059.html
>
> Now Richard is asking that we effectively consider his proposal
> withdrawn for the HTML5 time frame.  Frank has also agreed to postpone
> this to HTML.next:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2012/08/16-html-wg-minutes.html#item09
>
> Given that no active proposals remain, the chairs are now asking if
> there is consensus to roll back the hit testing proposal and to defer
> the feature to HTML.next.  If anybody would like to raise an objection
> during this time, we will require them to accompany their objection with
> a concrete and complete change proposal.
>
> If no objections are raised to this call by August 30th, 2012, we will
> direct the editors to make the proposed change, and will only consider
> subsequently reopening this issue based on new information and a
> complete change proposal based on the spec's contents as it exists after
> this change is applied.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> Note: while the process for HTML.next has not been determined, people
> are welcome to publish proposals for what the spec should look like, and
> should any Working Group member chose to do so, we will make provisions
> to publish same on the W3C site (alongside any other proposals that may
> be made)

Hearing no objections, this call passes.  Issue 131 will now be closed.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 31 August 2012 12:01:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:33 UTC