- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:00:10 -0600
- To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Paul, > I think the WG needs to decide how much effort we want to put into > keeping the Tracker issue State correct when the information is > already recorded in the Change Proposal Status page. I agree. When Chris was Chairing, the group did spend time on tracker definitions: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Main_Page#Tracker_Definitions http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/70 It is probably minor updating but, at some point would be good to have those definitions in sync with the policy. > Thanks for pointing out this situation. You are welcome. Actually the main points that I wanted confirmation of, are the second two bullets. * If the change proposal is not done by the deadline, the issue will be closed without prejudice and DEFERRED to the NEXT VERSION of HTML. * An issue that is closed without prejudice in this way can only be re-raised with approval of the HTML Chairs. It is an ENDPOINT for the escalation process. Are these correct? Thanks. Best Regards. Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 15:00:54 UTC