- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:29:33 -0800
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jan 18, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>> The alternative which is clearly within the chair's discretion is: >>> " With prior permission from the chairs, a high-level prose >>> description of the changes to be made." >>> Given Roy's rationale, I think allowing a change proposal with a >>> high-level prose descriptions of the changes to be made would be >>> useful. >> While we have not discussed the possibility of just a high-level >> prose description without showing any detail, my own feeling is that >> it would leave too much room for misinterpretation. > > I think we should seriously consider this. I'd like to hear whether Roy has a problem with both of the alternatives I listed before we consider watering down the requirements further. Just to repeat them for the record: 1) Write the changes against a specific CVS version number of the spec. If the Change Proposal succeeds, then we will expect the changes to be applied properly to any changes as well. 2) Write clear definitions of all affected terms, possibly in the form of suggested edits to the terminology section, and demonstrate correct usage of the terms by suggesting specific edits to one or two representative sections. In particular, I don't think #2 is materially more work than a "high-level prose description", but it seems much less likely to lead to debates over how to interpret the Change Proposal. I'd like to hear from Roy whether he considers it acceptable, and if not, is there anything else that would work for him. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 00:30:06 UTC