W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > August 2011

[Bug 13423] Remove the Editing APIs section. It's extremely incomplete and contradicts my editing spec on a lot of points, so it will confuse implementers.

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:02:05 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QtiZB-0006Kl-2t@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13423

--- Comment #25 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 2011-08-17 16:02:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> 
> And I'm willing to issue a formal objection if this proceeds without a clear
> understanding of what it means to take something from the Rec track and put it
> into the W3C's new incubator effort. 

You can't object to "proceeding", in particular, you can't object to the
opening of a bug report or even to the initial resolution proposed by an
editor, which I will note hasn't even happened yet.

You can object to a decision[1].  For that to happen, there will need to be an
initial resolution, an issue raised, an opportunity for people to prepare
change proposals, and ultimately a decision.  At a minimum, that process will
ensure that the Director has the input of the WG on the matter, including a
list of concrete proposals to chose from.

My may be able to object to the creation of a community group -- I honestly
don't know as the WG was not involved in that action.

In any case, a Formal Objection is likely to be unnecessary in this instance as
Editing APIs are called out in the charter, and therefore the topic will
undoubtedly come up.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#WGArchiveMinorityViews
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html

-- 
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 Wednesday, 17 August 2011 16:02:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:17 UTC