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

Re: Chair review of the issue-185 change proposals

From: Ian Devlin <ian@iandevlin.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:59:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOYOhSsUddLtVFxFXpv51heOWTr6DMWCCiQaMGEhx_KDAfpoHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Hi Sam,

I have updated the counter proposal 'Keep pubdate and add moddate' as
requested. (
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Idevlin/keep_pubdate_change_proposal)

I have removed the extraneous text as mentioned in the detail section.
I wasn't aware that permission was required for adding a prose description
so I can only apologise for that.
Evidence and further rationale for the addition of a 'moddate' attribute
have also been added.

I hope this is deemed sufficient on my part for the proposal to move to the
next stage.

Regards,

Ian

On 27 March 2012 13:08, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> http://dev.w3.org/html5/**status/issue-status.html#**ISSUE-185<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/wiki/User:Tantekelik/drop_pubdate>
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/**wiki/User:Idevlin/keep_**
> pubdate_change_proposal<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
>



-- 
ian devlin
e: ian@iandevlin.com
w: www.iandevlin.com
t: @iandevlin <http://www.twitter.com/iandevlin>
skype: idevlin

buy my book: html5 multimedia: develop and design<http://html5multimedia.com>
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:59:35 UTC

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