W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org > May 2008

Re: discretion in adding issues [was: respecification of document.write...]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 11:37:39 -0500
To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Cc: public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org
Message-Id: <1212079059.4651.952.camel@pav.lan>

On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 15:47 +0000, Robert J Burns wrote:
> HI Dan,
> On May 29, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 21:10 +0000, Robert J Burns wrote:
> >> Dear WG,
> >>
> >> Here is another issue that needs to be introduced here for  
> >> discussion,
> >> as it will be added to the issue-tracker in time.
> >
> > Adding an issue to the tracker creates a burden for the whole group,
> > so it's not the sort of thing we should do at the request
> > of just one person.
> I understand.
> > "need" is a strong word; it's not at all clear to me that
> > the WG _needs_ to make a decision about respecification
> > of document.write.
> I'm not sure where you're referring to the use of the word "need". My  
> use of that word was that I "need" to send an introductory message to  
> the list about the issue (that was referring to my own sense of duty  
> allowing the WG to discuss the issue). I don't know why you would have  
> any dispute about that. Though perhaps you're referring to a different  
> occurrence of that word.

OK; I (mis) understood you to say that the WG needs to make a decision
about this.

> This issue of document.write was not requested by specifically one  
> person (at least not in my recollection). Rather it arose out of some  
> discussion with many WG members of the inconsistencies between the  
> text/html and XML serializations and the difficulties any author faces  
> in trying to transition from one to the other.

If that's so, then it should be straightforward to substantiate from
the mailing list archives; I don't see any reason to be hasty
and go by recollection.

>  I personally have no  
> stake in that, but felt the editor was not adequately addressing those  
> concerns (along with most of the others, I've just recently raised).
> Take care,
> Rob
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 16:37:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:50:17 UTC