Re: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-101 us-ascii-ref Change Proposal to replace ASCII reference

On Jun 15, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> On 06/15/2010 02:13 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> 
>> Here's a counter-Change Proposal:
>> 
>> Rationale
>> 
>> To put spec readers ahead of theoretical purity, spec references
>> should be followable in a browser without paywalls when feasible. In
>> the case of ASCII, it is feasible.
>> 
>> Details
>> 
>> The reference for ASCII must not be to a document that cannot be
>> obtained as plain text, HTML or PDF free of charge without a wrapper
>> format (such as zip) by issuing an HTTP GET request. The reference
>> should be to any resource, at the editor's discretion, that describes
>> ASCII and that can be obtained as plain text, HTML or PDF free of
>> charge without a wrapper format (such as zip) by issuing an HTTP GET
>> request.
> 
> The above does not meet the criteria for a change proposal. Specifically[1]:
> 
> Proposal Details: This may take one of the following four forms:
> 
> * A set of edit instructions, specific enough that they can be
>   applied without ambiguity.
> * Spec text for a draft to be published separate from HTML5
>   (though such a draft can be proposed at any time without a
>   Change Proposal).
> * Exact spec text for the sections to be changed, and a baseline
>   revision for the version of the spec being changed.
> * With prior permission from the chairs, a high-level prose
>   description of the changes to be made.

To give some specific examples of changes that would comprise a sufficiently specific Details section (in my opinion):

- Propose no change.
- Propose a reference to a specific publicly available document other than the currently referenced one.
- Propose a reference to one of a list of specific documents (possibly including the current one).

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 18:35:41 UTC