- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:09:03 -0400
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
- CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Given the number of objections, I don't believe that they can all be
resolved by Monday, so here are the options I have heard so far.
1) Publish Ian's draft as is, along with the HTML 5 differences
from HTML 4. [SR]
2) Publish Ian's draft, the HTML 5 differences from HTML 4, and
Manu's draft. [LM, JF1]
3) Publish Ian's draft, the HTML 5 differences from HTML 4, and
Mike's draft. [LM, JF1]
4) Instruct Mike Smith to work with Ian to incorporate [text to
be provided by John Foliot] into Ian's draft [JF2]
5) Publish Ian's draft. [LHS]
I think a poll where people can indicate multiple options that they can
live with is the best approach. The chairs will simply pick the option
that most people can live with and go with that one.
I am not happy including options that suggest publishing documents that
the authors themselves have not indicated are ready to be published, so
if Mike or Manu (et. al.) request that options 2 or 3 respectively be
removed, that particular option will not go forward.
If John and Ian can work together to capture a mutually acceptable issue
box in the text itself, option 4 will be removed.
Similarly, if Anne adopts text that is acceptable to Leif, option 5 will
be removed.
In the event that all of the above happens, there won't be a need for a
poll at all. :-)
- Sam Ruby
[SR] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0885.html
[LM] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0824.html
[JF1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0826.html
[JF2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0912.html
[LHS] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0899.html
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 13:10:08 UTC