- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 03:14:05 +0900
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ben Peters <Ben.Peters@microsoft.com>, public-editing-tf <public-editing-tf@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/9/15 2:20 PM, Ben Peters wrote: >> >> Does anyone have thoughts on this? > > > Hi Ben, > > (Sorry for not replying to your earlier request for feedback.) > > Re #1 and #2, if you haven't already done as you suggested below, I > recommend you do so. For #1, what rniwa commented on Jan 21 makes sense to me, so I'm fine not to include. I think inclusion would make our design cleaner and better, but we might not have a good use case to justify the cost, and we might see some issues if we try that. If you think it should be included for now, I'm fine with that too, but as Arthur said, it might be better to mark as an issue so that readers can leave comments in the issue if they found anything. For #2, I agree with Arthur. > Re #3 and #4, in the absence of feedback from others, perhaps it would be > useful if the relevant spec text was embellished with an "Issue Block" that > includes a link to the GH Issue as well as explicitly asks for feedback. Agreed. These issues should not block FPWD, and I think they're good issues for spec readers to pay attentions to. I think we should mark them in the spec anyway even if the TF has some level of consensus. /koji
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2015 18:14:31 UTC