W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2010

RE: CfC: Close ISSUE-59 normative-language-reference extended to 2010-01-07

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:55:12 -0500
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF94271604.8B0DF8B8-ON852576C4.007D890E-852576C4.007D96B1@lotus.com>
Larry, I notice that you sent this only to Maciej and to the archive.  I'm 
going to assume that no followup is needed on the TAG side, unless you 
signal to the contrary.  Did you ever hear back on this?  Thanks.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
01/13/2010 12:29 AM
 
        To:     "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, 
Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: CfC: Close ISSUE-59 
normative-language-reference extended to  2010-01-07


>> There was 
>> general agreement that the author-only view of the main spec, plus 
>> a commitment to maintain it and improve its quality, was sufficient 
>> as a normative reference.

What has become of the "author-only view of the 'main spec'" in the
recent split of the HTML spec into multiple components? Which is
the "main spec"?

Since the spec is now split across multiple documents, where is
the author-only view and who has made the commitment to maintain it
and improve its quality?

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net


-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On 
Behalf Of Maciej Stachowiak
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:13 AM
To: Maciej Stachowiak
Cc: HTMLWG WG
Subject: Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-59 normative-language-reference extended to 
2010-01-07


There has been no objection by the extended deadline, and the TAG 
seems satisfied with our course of action, while reserving the right 
to raise further objections depending on how things go. Therefore, 
closing this.

  - Maciej

On Dec 15, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

>
> Per the request of a TAG member, we have sent a courtesy 
> notification to the TAG. The deadline for objections is extended 
> until January 1, 2010, to give the TAG a meaningful chance to 
> respond, if they care to.
>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>>
>> At TPAC, we had a joint session with the TAG where we discussed 
>> their interest in having a separate language reference. There was 
>> general agreement that the author-only view of the main spec, plus 
>> a commitment to maintain it and improve its quality, was sufficient 
>> as a normative reference. There was also agreement that Mike's 
>> document would be useful and beneficial as a non-normative 
>> reference guide to the syntax. Therefore, it seems there is no more 
>> controversy over ISSUE-59, and we should close it by amicable 
>> resolution.
>>
>> If there are no objections, this issue will be closed on December 
>> 17, 2009.
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/59 
>>
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>>
>
>
Received on Monday, 8 February 2010 22:52:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:28 GMT