- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:26:41 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Sam Ruby wrote: >> >> ... >>> >>> I would remove my objection to another heart beat document if the >>> HTML5 author agrees not to make any additional changes to the document >>> that can't be specifically tied back to a change request or bug >>> entered into the W3C bug database. If the document is stable enough to >>> be a WhatWG document, there shouldn't be anything about the document >>> that is currently undergoing change _except_ for changes based on >>> feedback. And that feedback should be documented, formally. >>> >>> The changes should not be occurring because of loose discussions in >>> IRC, or hallways discussions when it comes to that. They shouldn't be >>> _just_ in the WhatWG database, either, or occurring spontaneously. >>> There should be a an accountability of changes to the document from >>> this moment on. >>> >>> Is this a fair request to make? >> >> Unfortunately, I don't think it is. I am certain that I could find a >> half-dozen typos in the document at will at the present time. I don't >> believe that we need undue process for routine items. >> ... > > From my point of view, fixing strictly editorial issues would be totally ok. Agree. > > BR, Julian > SP
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 16:27:14 UTC