- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "'Leif Halvard Silli'" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: "'Laura Carlson'" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "'Shelley Powers'" <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > I wasn't aware that there was any particular need to assert that this > portion of the spec would continue to be edited like every other > portion of the spec. +1 I believe that all aspects of the Draft Specification are open to discussion right up until Candidate Recommendation, although by that time we should be pretty clear on all issues, questions, etc. But (for example) Last Call can and often does introduce questions, issues, etc. that may warrant further discussion (if history and my experience with the WCAG 2 document was an indication). I'm not saying that this is a desired course of action, but the W3C process does allow for this: "Ideally, after a Last Call announcement, a Working Group receives only indications of support for the document, with no proposals for substantive change. In practice, Last Call announcements generate comments that sometimes result in substantive changes to a document. A Working Group SHOULD NOT assume that it has finished its work by virtue of issuing a Last Call announcement." http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call JF
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 16:46:43 UTC