- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:35:08 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
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