W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2000

Re: review process [was: identify...]

From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:53:41 -0500 (EST)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10002201737290.1475-100000@mail.q2.net>

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, Dan Connolly wrote:

> Unanimously or otherwise, the WG has the option to decline your
> request, yes. (If there's dissent in the WG, they have to
> 'escalate' their own decision, though.)
> | That's the good news.  The bad news is that I find out about this
> | when it has gone to CR/PR/whatever.
> Yes, in fact, the process as I drew it doesn't require them to
> notify you if they choose to escalate. Courtesy suggests that they
> shouldn't escalate before they've declined and you've appealed,
> but the process as I see it doesn't require that.

Thanks for the clarifications.  I haven't read the fine print to
determine whether I'll be doing things in the right order, but the
refined version of my "mild test" will be to post three action items
(two specific and one not-so-specific) to the www-html-editor list,
aimed at the XHTML 1.1 spec:

  1.  That the requirement mandating a document type declaration
      be removed.

  2.  That the requirement for user-agents to "render the content"
      of an unrecognized element be removed.

  3.  That the requirements for user-agents now stated as "musts"
      be amended to "shoulds".

I note that while #1 has been discussed on this list, to the extent
that a rationale (which I find unconvincing) has been offered, #2 and
#3 as they stand now in the spec still remain unexplained.

I presume the reply (if any) will show up on www-html-editor, too?
(Just so I know where to look?)

Received on Sunday, 20 February 2000 17:27:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:53 UTC