- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 11:52:47 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11637 --- Comment #2 from Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 2011-03-06 11:52:47 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > I suggest that this be accomplished by setting a slightly higher standard for > Change Proposals that don't make any conformance classes change. For instance, > the chairs might require that such proposals clearly explain who will benefit > from the proposed change (specification readers? editors of other > specifications?), and at least briefly explain what specific benefit they'll > get. This will at least help prevent Change Proposals like Julian's in > ISSUE-127, which don't even try to explain who will benefit or how. If the > proposal suggests a conformance class change, that at least means we can figure > out who's affected, and presumably figure out how, so such an added requirement > isn't necessary. I don't think this is helpful, as it will lead to arguments about whether a bug is editorial or not. ISSUE-127 is not; it does affect the registration procedure for link relations. -- 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 Sunday, 6 March 2011 11:52:49 UTC