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

Re: ISSUE-183: enhance-time - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

From: Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:01:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CALGrget1AjMo_zfT9FhGJpj=e+fwo2rOF8avpOWzVT0snSgadQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org LIST" <public-html@w3.org>
Thanks for the feedback, I am reviewing and will provide an updated
proposal which addresses the identified flaws and provides further
information in support of the contentious questions.

Thanks,
Cameron Jones

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Cjones/ISSUE-183
>
> This Change Proposal as written has some significant flaws. If they are not addressed, it is likely that this Change Proposal will be rejected for lack of sufficient Details. The Rationale could also use improvement.
>
> - The Details for this proposal are insufficient:
>   - Item 1, "Remove the<time>  element and all associated attributes", is quite clear and sufficient in itself.
>   - Item 2, "Replace the time and date parsing instruction set with the<data>  element", is quite unclear. It is not at all obvious what it means to replace a "parsing instruction set" with an element. This proposal needs to spell out the details. How would the <data>  element provide for date and time parsing? The Chairs presume that something along the lines of this (reverted) change is intended: <http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=6782&to=6783>. If so, the Change Proposal should be updated to reflect that.
>   - Item 3, "Update the time and date parsing instruction set with the additional rules introduced by Tantek Çelik's proposal to ISSUE-183" is not nearly specific enough. However, it seems these changes are uncontroversial, as they are called for by both Change Proposals on this issue, further, they have been adopted by Call for Consensus. Therefore, we suggest simply striking this material.
>
> - Much of the Rationale seems to explore practical impact of one of the listed Positive Effects: 'The DRY principal that "Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system" is maintained'. However, the other proposal does not appear to suggest that both <data> and <time> should be presented as valid choices for expressing a machine-readable date and time, rather it seems to propose only <time> for this purpose. To accept these arguments, some evidence should be provided
> some evidence should be provided that the other proposal recommends the use of <data> to hold machine-readable date and time, or that <data> would be used this way in practice notwithstanding the spec.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Cameron Heavon-Jones wrote:
>
>> Hello Chairs,
>>
>> I would like to submit the following counter-proposal for ISSUE-183 - Drop the <time> element:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Cjones/ISSUE-183
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Cameron Jones
>>
>>
>> On 12/01/2012, at 7:41 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> '{audio,video} require param child (or equivalent)'
>>> The current status for this issue:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/183
>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-183
>>>
>>> So far, we have one Change Proposal submitted:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik/time_element
>>>
>>> At this time the Chairs would also like to solicit additional Change Proposals (possibly with "zero edits" as the Proposal Details), in case anyone would like to advocate the status quo or a different change than the specific one in the existing Change Proposals.
>>>
>>> If no counter-proposals or alternate proposals are received by February 11th, 2011, we proceed to evaluate the change proposals that we have received to date.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Maciej
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 13:02:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:47 GMT