- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:12:02 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jan 17, 2010, at 5:20 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Sam Ruby wrote: >> ... >>> The clear and reasonable deadline I am asking for is that, when you >>> have assigned a deadline for the last blocker issue, then assign >>> the same deadline for this one. What's the harm in that? >> I would be very concerned if everybody took that position. > > That would be a problem. For now although it seems to be hypothetical problem. > >> I am also concerned that if nobody else sees this as enough of an issue to work on a change proposal. > > I think it is an issue, and so does the TAG (as far as I understand their feedback, see <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0024.html>). > > This change proposal is (or would be) really different from others in that it requires touching many many parts of the spec, and once this is done, it may have to be repeated again once sloppy terminology gets back in. And, perhaps more importantly, it is an editorial issue. Fixing it late in the process does not impact implementations. The editor already has the information needed to fix the issue; he just doesn't want to. If he changes his mind, there is ample list discussion that can be followed for instruction. It is a difficult proposal to write because the current use of terminology like resource, file, document, and even pragma is not only incorrect, but also inconsistent. Fixing it will require going through the entire thousand-page document, line by line, and I would like to postpone having to do that until after I have finished a similar task in httpbis. ....Roy
Received on Sunday, 17 January 2010 20:12:33 UTC