- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 03:30:19 -0800
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jan 9, 2010, at 4:27 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > Laura Carlson wrote: >> Hi Ian, >>> I was (and still am) trying to follow the process, >> That is good. >>> and trying to resolve the bugs Shelley filed in a manner >>> consistent with the chairs' decision on Microdata. > > I prefer the term WG decision. > >> That may be a source of the confusion. >> Sam, Maciej, and Paul is/was the Microdata decision meant to set >> precedent and design principle and be applied to all bugs/issues? >> Or was the poll and decision particular to Microdata? > > The poll and decision itself was intended to be interpreted narrowly. > > That being said, the key phrase in the WG Decision was "The > objections based on maturity, market success, and reusability in > other languages are stronger than their respective counterpoints." > It may very well be the case that similar considerations would apply > to other situations. +1 On the one hand, the actual decision was only on the concrete question of Microdata. On the other hand, if anyone wants to guess that similar reasoning may apply to other similar issues, that's not entirely a bad thing. It's better if we can resolve more of these disagreements without escalating them all the way, and taking previously presented arguments into account may help with that. But it's also important to keep in mind that there may be different factual circumstances and different applicable arguments when other splits are proposed. Regards, Maciej
Received on Sunday, 10 January 2010 11:30:54 UTC