On Aug 2, 2009, at 4:03 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > Recapping the current state, as I understand it. > > Ian has updated the current draft acknowledging that this is an > issue. His acknowledgment, and the surrounding text, has been worded > in a way that implies that the default will be obsolete, where John > would be satisfied if this were worded in a way that the default is > deprecated. Either way, it is still an open issue, and whichever way > the default may seem to be in August does not in any way constrain > the final outcome. > > If John removes his objection, and nobody else comes forward, then > there will be no remaining options, and therefore no poll. If he > does not, there are two options: > > 1) Publish with @summary marked as obsolete > 2) Publish with @summary marked as deprecated > > If the state does not change between now and tomorrow, I'm going to > instruct Mike to put forward such a poll, with the results to be > discussed in Thursday's call and a decision to be made there. > The purpose of this email is to invite anybody who sees the state > differently than I do to correct me. I don't see the state differently than you do, but I don't understand the poll options you listed enough that I could make an informed decision. Specifically, I don't understand if we will we just be voting on a wording change, or if there a substantive change implied. Not for lack of trying -- in my email discussion with John, I was unable to determine a substantive difference between "deprecated" as he understood it and the spec's current use of "obsolete", but he didn't say it's just a matter of word choice either. I'd like to request wording for the poll options that is clear enough for WG participants to make an informed decision. Regards, MaciejReceived on Sunday, 2 August 2009 13:32:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:52 UTC