- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 06:50:31 -0400
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On May 23, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > >> On Fri, 22 May 2009 23:57:41 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On May 22, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: >>> >>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>>>> I read these minutes and I was unable to discern a decision among >>>>> the options I proposed: >>>>> 1) Mark up examples more clearly as such in the Design Principles >>>>> document. >>>>> 2) Delete all examples from the Design Principles document. >>>>> 3) Something else if neither of these options is acceptable. >>>>> I will do #1 unless I hear otherwise in the next few days. >>>> >>>> The general perception I got from the call was that this document >>>> was useful as a historical guide, and as a Working Draft, and it >>>> should remain as such as some people find it helpful (others may >>>> not), but should not progress any further. >>>> >>>> But as you were not present on the call, no decision was made. >>>> David Singer volunteered to get with you. >>> >>> I think the flaw identified in the document should be fixed, even if >>> it remains a Working Draft. Would anyone like to make an argument for >>> not fixing it? Or for doing something other than my proposed remedy? >> >> I don't see ay reason not to fix it, > > I'm going to fix it as soon as I can coordinate with Anne. > >> but given the nature of the document, it might be even easier to >> publish a new version that simply has a changed status, clarifying >> that the group has no plan to take this any further... > > Hmm. The original document was published as a Working Draft on track to > become a W3C Note by a lopsided vote of the Working Group in favor. If > we are going to reverse that decision and decide not to ever publish it > as a Note, then I think we need something more than informal discussion > on a conference call. > > So, I would object to publishing a version that says the group has no > plans to take the document further, until and unless we have clear > consensus on that point. I agree that it was a lopsided vote. I agree that there was an intent to publish as a Note, but disagree with any implication that it constituted a commitment or a decision to ultimately publish as a Note, in particular I disagree that it was a decision that would need to be reversed. I disagree that the conference call is "informal", but I agree that further discussion is warranted. - Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 24 May 2009 10:51:12 UTC