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

Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:47:41 -0700
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, 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>
Message-id: <6D6FB3AF-F533-444A-8AB8-59AF3C8BE991@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

On Jul 31, 2009, at 6:09 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> 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]

It seems to me that #4 as stated is orthogonal to publication. Any  
combination of doing or not doing #1 and #4 would be valid, for example.

Perhaps the intent was that #4 gives a precondition to publication. In  
that case, is the precondition giving instructions to Mike Smith, or  
does Mike Smith have to be successful in getting John Foliot's not-yet- 
written text into Ian's draft to satisfy the precondition? It seems  
like the latter option could lead to indefinite delay in publication.

Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 23:48:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:48 UTC