- From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 21:39:03 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@nicholascar actually whatever pointer you give I'm not sure we can close the issue based on that. There is no formal use case nor requirement (this was actually the goal of the issue: formalizing a need, not an answer!) so it's really tricky to close it. Maybe we can be creative and follow @plehegar 's advice in today's call: how about marking the PROF features about 'authoritative' validation as a "feature at risk", documenting the fact that the use case and requirement couldn't be formalized in our UCR doc? This could allow not to drop what's been done in PROF now, to document the rationale for it (via a pointer to this issue in PROF), to close this issue and to not endanger the fate of PROF in case the feature draws more criticism. And still to reflect that at least one of us (@kcoyle) has expressed strong reservation about it (which in turn could incite others to weigh in during the CR phase) I also feels (but I may be wrong) that @kcoyle 's doubts on the relevance of the role discussed in the issue would be properly handled in the context of #1049 . I.e. I expect that #1049 could be used to decide on the fate of the role discussed here, even after we close this issue. @nicholascar @rob-metalinkage @kcoyle @pwin is it something that we could live with? -- GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/597#issuecomment-527651215 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2019 21:39:05 UTC