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

Chair review of the issue-185 change proposals

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 07:08:50 -0400
Message-ID: <4F719FC2.5050304@intertwingly.net>
To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
CC: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, Ian Devlin <ian@iandevlin.com>
http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-185

"Drop the pubdate attribute"

----

Change Proposals:

http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik/drop_pubdate
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Idevlin/keep_pubdate_change_proposal

Cosmetic analysis:

*) Both contain a summary

*) Both contain a rationale [but see below]

*) Both contain detail sections
  - "keep pubdate" seems to have extraneous text (left over
    from a template?) that starts "Use one of...".  This needs to
    be removed.
  - both contain a prose description without prior permission,
    but this is not an issue in either case.

*) Both contain impact sections

--- Substantive analysis - Drop pubdate

Claims that the pubdate attribute is not used or that hAtom supersets
its functionality.  Given that the counter proposal cites actual
deployed usage, this claim needs to be discarded.  Without this claim,
the remaining arguments don't appear to be sufficient to proceed.  Net:
we need to provide feedback asking that this proposal be updated to
address the claims of actual usage.

Does not make any claims about moddate.  As all of the arguments given
for pubdate apply to moddate, perhaps this proposal simply needs to be 
updated to state that?

--- Substantive analysis - Keep pubdate

Claims concerning pubdate seem sufficient to merit allowing this part of 
this proposal to proceed to a survey -- once the cosmetic issue
("Use one of...") identified at the top of this email is addressed.

Claims concerning moddate consist of a statement that "there is a need"
and a second statement that "it would be useful".  As no evidence is
provided for either claim, this part of the proposal does NOT merit 
progressing to a survey.  Either evidence needs to be provided or this 
part of the proposal needs to be removed.

--- Overall:

If the proposals are updated to address the moddate feedback above, we 
will proceed to split this issue.  To illustrate why: consider what 
would happen if we were to accept both proposals and get no other 
feedback.  At the present time, keep pubdate has made its case, but add 
moddate would not have.  We would have to either make a split decision 
or make a decision that doesn't align well with the arguments presented.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 11:09:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:31 UTC