Re: Change Proposals and FPWD Resolutions

Krzysztof Maczyński wrote:
>> As Sam said, you will be free to state objections to *both* proposals  
>> on the table, if you feel you cannot live with either, and feel you  
>> can state strong objections to both.
> 
> Manu, given the concerns expressed by Shelley and me about 
> granularity of Change Proposals, would you like now to 
> revert your Change Proposal wrt. this?

The conciseness/granularity argument resonated with me - it would be
good to keep the change proposals focused on accomplishing one thing at
a time. I was attempting to short circuit the process with what I see as
inevitable... but I can see how others may not want to make those
assumptions.

By not automatically publishing a HTML+Microdata FPWD, we don't block
Microdata from making progress in any way, so I'm happy to revert the
Change Proposal to only address the aspect of splitting Microdata from
the HTML5 specification proper.

> If not, would it be OK with you if I created my own 
> Change Proposal almost identical to yours but different in
> this point?

Even though I'm reverting it, if you or anyone else in this working
group is still not happy with the Change Proposal (for whatever reason),
feel free to modify it and submit your revision for consideration.

I'll submit the no-auto-publishing revision in the next few hours.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.2 Launched - The Legal P2P Music Network
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/11/30/bitmunk-3-2-launched/

Received on Wednesday, 9 December 2009 20:02:12 UTC