Re: volunteering for change proposal for issue 117

Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 08/25/2010 06:28 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> I'm volunteering to write a change proposal for Issue 117.
> In that case, I encourage you to rejoin the working group.

Is this a requirement? I can understand that it is simpler to only have 
members propose change proposals--they need to be shepherded through the 
decision process. I can withhold my submission for a time to see if 
others volunteer.

As is obvious, I am intensely interested in HTML5. Frankly, though, I 
don't feel comfortable with the HTML WG. I'm not sure re-joining would 
be good for myself, or for the group. I get the impression that I am an 
unwelcome disruption.

If this is a requirement for change proposals, I need to think on it.
>> I also want to ask for an update on my other issues:
>> The surveys for Issues 96 and 97 ended over three months ago. In fact,
>> we're heading towards the fourth month. Any idea when a decision on
>> these will be released?
>> The change proposals for issues 89 and 92 were provided several months
>> ago (March and April). Any idea when these will go to survey?
>> Issue 100 did just complete a survey. Any idea when a decision on this
>> one may be forthcoming?
> We do not have specific dates assigned to these items just yet.  In 
> the specific case of new surveys, I can say that issue-41 is ahead of 
> issues 89 and 92.
Yes, Issue 41 is much older. I could see it taking precedence over any 
other action, including my older survey items.

>> I asked to re-open Issue 106[1]. As I stated, I believe that the
>> longdesc issue--including making obsolete an attribute that was valid in
>> HTML4, without any intervening period of deprecation--is new
>> information, as is the new interest in this topic. If you do, I will
>> also write a change proposal for this item, too.
> As issue 106 was closed without prejudice, new information is not a 
> requirement.
That's good to know. I hope you do re-open it, then. Perhaps after Issue 
41, or some of the others are resolved.

By the way, the suggestion for an HTMl5 overview document[1] was an 
excellent one. I don't know about Issue 116, but the idea is an 
excellent one, regardless of what happens with this issue.

> - Sam Ruby


Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 00:05:27 UTC