- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:27:20 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > Shelley Powers wrote: >>>> >>>> If someone publishes a Working Draft with many differences, can we >>>> discuss each, or is it a case of all or nothing? >>> >>> I don't understand the question. >> >> Sorry, I wasn't very clear. >> >> Let's say an alternative draft changes how summary is handled, the >> microdata section, and various other pieces of the Editor's draft. I'm >> assuming we could propose the entire new draft, but we could also >> propose each section, by itself. One document, multiple proposals. >> Does that sound about right to folks? > > I'm still not following. Propose as what? Perhaps I have been confused > because what we have in front of us is a proposal to publish a Working > Draft. Propose as alternatives to the specific section in the Editor's draft. > > Meanwhile, we have people working on Issue 32. They aren't looking to > rewrite the entire document. I'll note that the early drafts I have seen > made by a number of members of the PFWG on how they would like to see > summary handled involve coordinated changes to a number of different > sections. I'm not talking about Issue 32, I'm talking about procedure moving forward. Up to now, the edits have been related to one issue. There is a good possibility of upcoming alternative HTML 5 specifications being related to multiple issues. > > I guess it comes down to what the meaning of "proposal" is. Ultimately, I > see it as a set of diffs when applied to a document produces a new document. > Such diffs need not be constrained by section boundaries. > You see it as technology, I'm seeing it as a process. I don't want the group's process to be dictated by the proposed technology, Sam. > - Sam Ruby > Shelley
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 19:28:00 UTC