Am 24.10.13 13:25, schrieb Dr. David Filip:
> Felix, Serge,
> Not sure if I understand Serge properly, but did he not say that he
> inadvertently filed a formal objection?
No, I checked (the check page is W3C staff confidential) his vote and it
was no formal objection - but just saying "support publication as a REC".
> Is there a way to verify what kind of vote Serge actually did cast? Is
> there a URL where members can see the results of the ballot?
Sorry, I can't share them with you, they are only avail. to the staff.
Best,
Felix
> Thanks
> dF
>
> Dr. David Filip
> =======================
> LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
> University of Limerick, Ireland
> telephone: +353-6120-2781
> *cellphone: +353-86-0222-158*
> facsimile: +353-6120-2734
> mailto: david.filip@ul.ie <mailto:david.filip@ul.ie>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org
> <mailto:fsasaki@w3.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Serge,
>
> no worries about this, I think this should be ok - otherwise I'll
> come back to you. Thanks for the follow up and sorry for
> disturbing you during travel.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
> Am 24.10.13 01:19, schrieb Serge Gladkoff:
>>
>> Dear Felix,
>>
>> I was travelling this and the previous weeks extensively with
>> occasional WiFi access from public locations, and I cast Logrus
>> vote in a hurry choosing the option which is not quite correct.
>>
>> I would like to fix it, if at all possible.
>>
>> Specifically, in question 6, I should have been choosing
>> "suggests changes, but supports publication as a W3C
>> Recommendation whether or not the changes are adopted (your
>> details below)."
>>
>> In explanation I wanted actually to note that: "We need to
>> publish, but make changes, since an inconsistency was found
>> between the schema and the specification about the values allowed
>> for the lineBreakType attribute. In Logrus opinion, the fix in
>> the schema is only an editorial change. The list of allowed
>> values for that attribute has been discussed and set a while
>> back. The change does not affect implementations. In addition, we
>> suggest to make the schema non-normative to avoid issues like the
>> above in the future. This also will not influence implementations
>> since the schema is not referenced normatively from the section
>> of conformance."
>>
>> Would it still be possible to change Logrus vote on this – it’s
>> minor change, I guess.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Serge Gladkoff
>>
>> Logrus LLC
>>
>> *From:*Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 14, 2013 7:32 AM
>> *To:* Des Oates; Ankit Srivastava; John Judge; Nicoletta
>> Calzolari; oreste.signore@isti.cnr.it
>> <mailto:oreste.signore@isti.cnr.it>; Clemens Weins; Yves
>> Savourel; Georg Rehm; tadej.stajner@ijs.si
>> <mailto:tadej.stajner@ijs.si>; "Pedro L. Díez Orzas"; Serge
>> Gladkoff; Daniel Grasmick; Jan Nelson; Milan Karasek; Lieske,
>> Christian; dave lewis; Jirka Kosek; Dr. David Filip; Phil
>> Ritchie; Lieske, Christian
>> *Cc:* public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
>> <mailto:public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
>> *Subject:* Moving ITS 2.0 forward - your action needed by 21
>> October latest
>>
>> Dear ITS 2.0 supporters,
>>
>> I had mentioned that we can move ITS 2.0 to PR, and your help
>> would be very helpful.
>>
>> For organizations that do not implement ITS 2.0 but having your
>> AC rep filling in this form
>> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/ITS20PR2013/
>> by *21 October* would be great. NOTE: this is a hard deadline,
>> but filling in the form will take only 5 minutes.
>>
>> For the implementers (for the others this is optional): it is
>> important that you state the following in the form:
>> - in question 6, choose "suggests changes, but supports
>> publication as a W3C Recommendation whether or not the changes
>> are adopted (your details below)."
>> - as an explanation say something like:
>> "An inconsistency was found between the schema and the
>> specification about the values allowed for the lineBreakType
>> attribute.
>> In our opinion, the fix in the schema is only an editorial change.
>> The list of allowed values for that attribute has been discussed
>> and set a while back. The change does not affect implementations.
>> In addition, we suggest to make the schema non-normative to avoid
>> issues like the above in the future. This also will not influence
>> implementations since the schema is not referenced normatively
>> from the conformance section"
>>
>> Above is taken from an existing AC review and adapted - if needed
>> please re-do the review by filling in the form again.
>>
>> Doing the above is quite important to express that our group is
>> definitely OK with the change.
>>
>> Thanks again for all the support,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>
>