- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:25:05 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
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. BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 16:32:26 UTC