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

Re: Statement why the Polyglot doc should be informative

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 02:06:14 -0800
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <C6C35C24-1CB7-44C1-A588-39EFAD084297@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

On Nov 9, 2012, at 7:07 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> 
>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>> Lacking such bug reports
>> 
>> I had the text of the first message to this thread open in a Bugzilla
>> textarea when I specifically asked Paul if the requirement to have a
>> bug report on file is waived in this case. I didnít file a bug,
>> because Paul indicated that voice communication at the meeting plus
>> sending the email would suffice to invoke the relevant part of the
>> Decision Process in this case.
> 
> Creative snipping there.  Whatever might have been said or what you might have thought you heard, I will once again state that the process is quite clear that the next step after the editors initial decision is indeed a bug report:
> 
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v3.html#note-vs-rec

We have bug reports on the normativity status of polyglot:
<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12725>

And also alt-techniques:
<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12726>


At the F2F I agreed (with Paul's concurrence, though without the opportunity to consult with Sam) to request rationale statements and move to a preference poll on these without requiring the formalities of escalation. For clarity, I have now added TrackerRequest to the bugs.

I apologize if this was unclearly minuted or if I failed to communicate it clearly in co-chair discussions.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 10:06:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:35 UTC