- From: Ennals, Robert <robert.ennals@intel.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:37:52 +0000
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>, "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>
Sam Ruby wrote: > Shelley Powers wrote: [snip] > > Thanks for the answer Rob. > > > > Can I make a suggestion? > > > > We have a new formal procedure in place now for requesting changes or > > additions to the HTML5 specification. It begins with a bug, then goes > > to an issue (if the bug isn't satisfactorily resolved), and then from > > there. > > > > Would it be possible for you to either attach this as a formal > > proposal, or counter proposal, to an existing issue? I believe there > > is an issue on decentralized extensibility, but not one on > > centralized, so you may need to, first, submit a bug, and then you > can > > attach your original email as a change proposal to that bug. > > > > I'm not trying to quash this discussion, just trying to ensure your > > proposal is given due diligence and full consideration. > > > > HTML WG chairs, would this not be a correct approach? > > Short answer: Yes, definitely. > > Longer answer: sometimes it makes sense to have a discussion before > proposing a concrete change (using the process that Shelley outlined > above, and Maciej detailed at > http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html). That's > entirely OK, it is just that all participants need to be aware of the > fact that the conclusion of discussion is assumed to be "no change is > required" unless a request is made via the documented process. Now done. This proposal is now in bugzilla as bug 8357. As Sam says, I think in this case it was useful to discuss the idea first to see if it had any holes, before creating a formal bug report. [snip] -Rob
Received on Monday, 23 November 2009 22:38:50 UTC