W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: ISSUE-53: mediatypereg - suggest closing on 2009-09-03

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:53:20 -0700
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Message-id: <CB85E5C1-4397-40D5-9A67-27F85F6C951A@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

On Aug 24, 2009, at 6:37 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Aug 24, 2009, at 6:25 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> That should be simple.  Is there anybody who is *opposed* to  
>>>> HTML5 describing all elements/attributes of previous specs?
>>>> Ian indicated that he believes that it does.  You have pointed  
>>>> out that it does not currently.  If we treat these differences as  
>>>> bugs (and add a history section, as you and Anne discussed), is  
>>>> this issue resolved?
>>> Yes!
>> Add definition of <meta scheme> <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7412 
>> >
>> Add definition of <html profile> <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7413 
>> >
>> Please add a history section <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7414 
>> >
>> I believe the editor intends to take action on all of these. Are  
>> any other bugs needed?
> Looks like <a name>:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/1242.html

Right now I'm not clear enough on what info Roy thinks should be added  
to file it as a bug, but I will gladly do so if we can clarify the  
desired change  through further discussion.

> It also looks like we have Larry's concurrence (thanks Larry!):
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/1222.html

Yep, looks good.

> In any case, I've already marked the issue as pending review.  And  
> just so nobody can claim that they didn't have an opportunity to  
> comment, let's keep with the schedule of closing this one on  
> 2009-09-03, with the proviso that it can be reopened should any of  
> the above bugs be closed as WONTFIX or otherwise addressed in a way  
> that does not resolve this issue.

Sounds right to me.

Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 06:54:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:54 UTC