- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:09:06 -0500
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 17:48 -0500, Laura Carlson wrote: > On 6/25/07, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > > > The working group has agreed to use the text of the HTML 5 spec > > for review, but we haven't made any decisions about language itself. > > >From 'Results of Questionnaire Shall we Adopt HTML5 as our > specification text for review?' [1] > > "A 'yes' response indicates a willingness to use these documents as > the basis for discussion with the editors and the WG going forward. It > does not constitute endorsement of the entire feature set specified in > these documents, nor does it indicate that you feel that the documents > in their present state should become a W3C Recommendation or even a > W3C Working Draft." > > Results: > yes 88 > no 4 > concur 7 > abstain 3 > > I don't 'think' anyone registered a formal objection. [2] Or did they? Elsewhere on the survey page we see: 'A "no" vote in this survey is a formal objection.' -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/ So each of the 'no' votes is a formal objection. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/results > [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#Consensus > > Laura -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 23:09:10 UTC