- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:34:22 -0600
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: HTML Weekly WG <public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, HTML Weekly Issue Tracker wrote: >>> >>> ISSUE-93 (details): Return Details Element [HTML 5 spec] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/93 >> >> This issue was opened in violation of the process and should be closed >> without prejudice. The bug in question was reopened for reconsideration, >> meaning the next step in the process is 5.c, not 5.d: >> >> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8379 >> > > You have a point. No new information was added, which is justification > for re-opening a bug. > > However, people have stated they were unaware of this bug. I did cc > the HTML WG on the bug, but evidently, the email to the group was > ignored, or missed. > > We'll have to leave it up to the co-chairs to make a decision on this > one. My inclination is to ensure that people do have a chance to > respond, even though you and I are in agreement. > Ah, I checked the procedure again. I see what you're saying, it should go back to the first step, and be treated like a new bug. Well, OK, I can close the issue. It will end up being an issue, I'm fairly sure, but we'll follow the procedure. >> -- >> Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > > Shelley >
Received on Friday, 8 January 2010 18:34:56 UTC