- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:26:27 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13423 --- Comment #14 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> 2011-08-15 18:26:27 UTC --- (In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #8) > > WG Member here. If the existing text is a subset of what is being implemented, > > that's no different to the rest of the frozen W3C spec. But if it contradicts > > what is being implemented to the extent that clientside code written against > > the spec will fail, that will cause authors confusion and users may experience > > breakage. (Implementor feedback would be valuable as to which is the case > > here.) > > The existing text is so sketchy that it's almost useless for interoperability. > I think leaving it in would be confusing, but not likely to cause > implementations to diverge appreciably. > > (In reply to comment #9) > > My own personal preference (not speaking as Chair) would be to have Aryeh's > > text submitted to the W3C in some form (either to the HTML WG or the Web Apps > > WG). I believe if that occurred, there would be no controversy about removing > > the buggy/incomplete editing spec text from the HTML5 spec. > > As I've said several times, my spec is in the public domain (CC0) and anyone > who wants to submit it to the W3C is free to do so. I won't stop them. > > This is an excellent opportunity for those who believe that the W3C is a good > place to develop specs to show their willingness to improve the web. All it > would take is a modest amount of effort to submit the spec for W3C publication, > and of course in their view, this would be beneficial because the W3C is a good > place to publish specs. I wait with interest for one of the many people who > have expressed concern about the editing spec not being at the W3C to spend the > necessary time themselves to fix the problem, rather than expecting others to > do it. > > (In reply to comment #10) > > My first reaction is that this bug is INVALID as it does not provide "A clear > > statement of a problem with the spec�bug reports are more useful if they > > identify concrete problems." Furthermore "Only one issue�please use separate > > bugs for separate issues.". Instead it provides, and only provides, "one > > suggested way to solve the problem". > > As far as I read the Decision Policy, the criteria it gives for bug filing are > purely advisory. It says only "bug reports that do not have enough information > to identify a problem or potential action may be closed as INVALID." I > interpret this as saying that although the editor is likely to close such bugs > as INVALID, this is not a requirement or even a suggestion, just a prediction. > If the editor feels this bug report contains sufficient information to be > actionable, he is entitled to resolve it as FIXED in his sole discretion, > subject only to the usual escalation procedures. > > Do you disagree with my interpretation of the policy? > > (In reply to comment #12) > > I did want to say, though I'm not an HTML WG member, that I agree 100% with > > this. I think this is an elegant solution and a win/win for everyone. > > Are you volunteering to do the work to submit the spec to the W3C? If not, do > you know of anyone who would be willing to do so? It's all very well to > propose that as a solution, but it doesn't help much if no one cares to do it. I'm actually not a member of the W3C. And I won't be as long as there are limitations on my joining that exceed those for others. Are you saying you've quit the W3C and the HTML WG? -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 15 August 2011 18:26:30 UTC