[Bug 14087] Return sections of HTML5 that were removed outside of the W3C


--- Comment #9 from David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> 2011-09-08 20:57:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> David, where the document is hosted is extremely important.

As I said, yes, but not as important as it being right.
> It is no longer a W3C document. Which means it is no longer covered by the W3C
> patent policy. 

So you are free to ignore it until such time that it is so hosted if you wish.

This would no no worse than html4 (and contemporary DOM specs) which did not
define these methods and better than the initial html5 drafts which specified
them in a way that was unhelpful for many uses.

> It doesn't matter that there's some planned maybe possibly future date where it
> might make its way back to the W3C. Until it is in the W3C in some official
> capacity, then the text needs to be maintained in the HTML5 document.

See above.

> And all the people of the HTML WG group know of is the first bug report, which
> was not related to separating this section out into a document and hosting it
> within the WHATWG server. This was an additional activity beyond the original
> scope of the bug. 

Not at all, the original bug report was that the section was wrong, the editor
suggested removing it rather than fixing it, and that resolution was acceptable
to the person who raised the bug. This is entirely in scope and proper. You are
of course free to disagree with the outcome. The fact that the main list only
sees initial bug reports and  interested WG members have to opt in to following
the details of specific bugs was a conscious decision of the WG.

> Again, moving text out of a LC document within the W3C into a document that's
> not a W3C document is not something I would hope the W3C takes lightly.

>From a W3C process point of view the text is just removed. 

> We'll have to disagree.


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 Thursday, 8 September 2011 20:57:52 UTC