- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:56:46 +0200
- To: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- CC: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
James Graham wrote: > ... > Nevertheless, for better or worse the charter puts the burden of proof > on those wishing for a formal decision to be made to demonstrate that > the decision is needed for progress. Is there a documented reason that > this particular decision was so important that it should circumvent the > usual proposal-draft-feedback-redraft cycle? We have recently seen the > ... My understanding of that cycle (*) is that it implies that there's no way to get something into the spec the editor doesn't want in there. That would be a problem. BR, Julian (*) as currently practiced
Received on Sunday, 31 August 2008 11:57:32 UTC