- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 06:02:05 -0400
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>, schwer@us.ibm.com, sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com, John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
Laura Carlson wrote: > >> My suggestion is that everbody focus on filling public-html (and >> wai-xtech and the teleconferences) with actual concrete proposals. > > Our proposal is real. I was unclear. I meant concrete technical proposals on specific features to add to the work products of the HTML Working Group (i.e., specs). As an aside, you seem to want to increase collaboration. As a general rule, it is best to start with an open discussion, on public-html. Starting with a PROPOSAL with ten signatories is an anti-pattern, i.e., something to be avoided. I realize that people are frustrated[1]. John says that "supposedly" there is an open issue. There is no supposedly about it. There is an issue[2], and its status is open. Yes, on summary Ian has proposed specific spec text. To the best of my knowledge, he is the only one who has done so. I am looking forward to concrete proposals on this issue. Failing that, I am looking forward to an open discussion on the wording of a vote or straw poll. Failing that, I am fully prepared to recommend that we proceed with the one and only tangible proposal that we do have. > Best Regards, > Laura - Sam Ruby [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0572.html [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
Received on Monday, 20 July 2009 10:04:59 UTC