- 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
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