- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:18:18 -0400
- To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote: >> ----------------- Pick one -------------------------- >> [ ] Publish Ian's latest draft to address the heartbeat requirement. >> [ ] Publish Ian's latest draft with Manu's warning language to >> address the heartbeat requirement. >> [ ] Publish both Ian's latest draft and Manu's latest warning >> language draft. > > If it turns out that a poll is necessary, I'm concerned that a poll with > three options could end up with a plurality. That's a good point - just offered it as a possible compromise if there was an issue with how polls can be setup via the W3C polling software. One additional request, as I'm attempting to find a compromise that addresses Maciej's "controversial issues" definition concerns: Could we have a text input area that allows voters to list which warning text they would like to have removed or modified from the HTML5-warnings spec if it is published? This would allow people to vote for HTML5-warnings, excluding specific warning text (noting that the section is not controversial). Pasting URLs or fragment IDs, prefixed with the word "REMOVE:" would be enough. Any warning that has 25% of the vote would be removed/modified. I can tally the results by hand and post the (verifiable) results to the mailing list, if necessary. If 25% seems like too low/high of a bar to reach, some other percentage that seems reasonable will do -- looking for guidance on this number. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 05:18:56 UTC