- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:54:23 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, "michel@suignard.com" <michel@suignard.com>, "tony@att.com" <tony@att.com>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>, "adil@diwan.com" <adil@diwan.com>, "ted.ietf@gmail.com" <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, John O'Conner <jooconne@adobe.com>, "presnick@qualcomm.com" <presnick@qualcomm.com>, "chris@lookout.net" <chris@lookout.net>, "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
On Sep 21, 2012, at 10:27 , Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2012-09-21 10:22, Robin Berjon wrote: >> But as Adam keeps saying, you're probably convincing the wrong people here. You need to speak to the implementers, and to the developers who wish to rely on such features. > > We're talking about a HTML spec feature that is very controversial, as was the chair's decision to keep it. > > It's up to the WG to decide what's in and what's not. The WG (through Philippe) has asked for feedback over here, and there was feedback. > > At this point, this feedback should be forwarded to the WG. > > Asking to talk to implementers sounds like moving goal posts. No it's not. The WG is a great place to talk to implementers. I'm merely providing advice about how to best be successful with bringing your concerns to fruition — it's naturally entirely up to you whether to follow this advice or not. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 08:54:59 UTC