W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Publishing a new draft (HTML5+RDFa)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:43:56 +0200
Message-ID: <4A72141C.6030408@malform.no>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Sam Ruby On 09-07-30 21.27:

> Ben Adida wrote:
>> Sam Ruby wrote:


>>> I have stated that the WHATWG (note: WHATWG, not HTML WG) is operating
>>> under a CTR process.
>>
>> I *was* talking about the HTML WG, and so were you when this discussion
>> was initially brought up:
>>
>> "For better or worse, the HTML WG is operating under a CTR process."
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0063.html
> 
> I mispoke.


When? I think you were just as clear in May that we work under 
CTR, as you are clear today that we are not.

I doubt that I am alone in perceiving the branch/fork "lottery" as 
a consequence of the CTR process.

As for the heartbeat requirement, in line with the perception you 
have created that we work under CTR (and may be you will once 
again confirm that we are?), now that the forks you have asked for 
finally have appeared (and Mike's wasn't in my view recognized as 
a branch/fork in this sense until recently - or else it could have 
been published as such _long_ ago), it does not make sense to give 
priority to heartbeat. Instead, it would make sense to finally 
take the consequence of the branch/fork call. (Heck, you have so 
many times spoken in the tone of "produce a draft or take the 
consequences = Ian's text".)
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 21:44:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 30 July 2009 21:44:41 GMT