W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Formal objection on ISSUE-129 (WAS RE: Revert request for r6574)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 02:22:34 +0000 (UTC)
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Philippe Le Hegaret (plh@w3.org)" <plh@w3.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210100221120.1904@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Oct 2012, Paul Cotton wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Do you wish to maintain this Formal Objection?
> >> 
> >> Could you please respond to my public-html@w3.org about this Formal 
> >> Objection? 
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0225.html
> > 
> > The points raised in the FO still apply, but I'll let the W3C decide 
> > how to deal with it for the HTMLWG deliverable. The problem either is 
> > or will be fixed in the WHATWG version of the spec regardless.
> 
> For the sake of clarity: does that mean you still wish to pursue your 
> Formal Objection or that you wish to withdraw it? i.e. do you want 
> processing of it via the Formal Objection process to be part of how "the 
> W3C decide[s] how to deal with it", or would you rather we dealt with it 
> otherwise?
> 
> (I ask because your statement was interpreted in opposite ways by 
> different people.)

I wish to not be involved in threads regarding the W3C process any more.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 02:22:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:59 GMT