- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:37:44 +0300
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jun 23, 2010, at 13:20, Sam Ruby wrote: > The chairs request that this change proposal be updated to be explicit about what change or possible range of changes would be acceptable. We note that Ian has provided input that, if incorporated, would satisfy this request. > > Note: the original intent behind allowing prose descriptions was for global changes that were clear (s/URL/URI/g comes to mind). In this case, we are talking about a specific paragraph, and in particular we have indication from the editor that he would interpret this paragraph in a specific way, namely no change. For the purposes of proceeding to soliciting objections, it would be much better if the proposal were explicit, and given that Ian has indicated how he would interpret this change proposal, we see no reason to permit a prose description in this case. I wanted to leave room for improvement at the Editor's discretion without having to reopen a Decision. But given the stance of the Chairs, this edited Change Proposal supersedes my previous Change Proposal for ISSUE 101: 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 No change. In particular, the reference to ASCII must not be changed to anything that cannot be obtained as plain text, HTML or PDF (without a wrapper format such as zip) free of charge by issuing an HTTP GET request. Impact Positive Effects Readers can follow references conveniently. Negative Effects The reference may be perceived to be less Official. Conformance Classes Changes None. Risks The reference being perceived as less Official due to this reason might, in theory, actually has some tangible consequence. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2010 10:38:20 UTC