Indeed. But my concerns were with HTML5.1 and potential complacency on the
larger issue at hand, which this is just a symptom of.
Regards,
Silvia.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>wrote:
> > I guess I was a step ahead when thinking about how to merge this into
> the specs.****
>
> ** **
>
> We don’t have to worry about folding this or any extensions spec into HTML
> 5.0 until “such a specification obtains consensus and meets the proposed CR
> exit criteria by 2014Q2 it could be folded back into the core HTML spec by
> that time.” [1]****
>
> ** **
>
> /paulc****
>
> ** **
>
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html#issues **
> **
>
> ** **
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada****
>
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3****
>
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:48 PM
>
> *To:* Paul Cotton
> *Cc:* public-html-admin@w3.org; Charles McCathie Nevile (
> chaals@yandex-team.ru); Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> (
> janina@rednote.net); Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org; Judy Brewer; Michael
> Cooper
> *Subject:* Re: CfC: to publish "HTML5 Image Description Extension"
> specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)****
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
> wrote:****
>
> >- As a Working Draft publication, the document does not need not be
> complete, to meet all technical requirements, or to have consensus on the
> contents.****
>
> All three of your points appear to be possible technical bugs against the
> HTML5 Image Description Extension specification. Can you explain why they
> cannot be handled this way and why they should stand in the way of the
> FPWD? ****
>
>
> I guess I was a step ahead when thinking about how to merge this into the
> specs. But we can indeed work this out while it's an FPWD.
>
> I'm supportive.
>
> Regards,
> Silvia.****
>