Re: summary attribute compromise proposal

On Aug 4, 2009, at 2:27 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> I haven't asked anyone to forfeit their opportunity to present a  
>> proposal. But my perception (perhaps incorrect) was that this was  
>> cited as a reason to fail to give substantive consideration to my  
>> proposal at this time.
> Fair enough.
> As for my (personal, not in my role as a chair) comment: I am deeply  
> skeptical about any spec language which requires conformance  
> checkers to provide mandatory advice except in cases where EITHER  
> such advice is required for browser interop OR it is likely that  
> that such advice will be widely followed.

I think a number of people feel that way. But I tried to come up with  
a proposal that I think might be within the boundaries of what the  
different factions could find acceptable. That means probably everyone  
can find something about it they find distasteful. But hopefully  
everyone can feel that their most important goals are upheld, as well.  
I'm not sure I can push my proposal much in either direction without  
making one group or the other feel like they "lose" if they accept it.

>> I'm willing and able to attend the telecon this week to discuss my  
>> summary="" proposal, as well as anyone else's, if you think that  
>> would be helpful.
> I'm confident that summary will be on the agenda.  Your  
> participation would be (and has been and is now) helpful.  I don't  
> have confirmation that Cynthia will make this particular call,  
> though she generally does.

I'll make every effort to be on the call, then. (It's a bit of a  
challenge for me to make early morning calls, given my sleep disorder,  
so please don't take offense if I don't make it or dial in late.)


Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 21:39:38 UTC