- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:00:26 +0200
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 24.06.2010 09:47, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> Henri Sivonen, Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:37:44 +0300: >> >>> 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. >> >> The suggested ECMA pdf meets this rationale. > > An ECMA PDF is not in Julian's Change Proposal. See point #2 below for explanation why I'm not engaging in discussion about the relative merits of an ECMA PDF. I provided spec text that I think is good, but also agreed that there are other substitute references that will work as well. >> Given the above, I don't understand what your proposal is about. It >> seems like an indifferent change proposal. > > It is about two things: > 1) Not pointing to paywalled or non-Web specs when non-paywalled Web sources with the relevant information exist. "when non-paywalled Web sources with the relevant information exist" -- that's the important part. RFC 1345 is not that source. > 2) Not bikeshedding trivialities wasting the group's and the editor's time but instead upholding the editor's discretion. The editor had plenty time to resolve the issue before. > See also > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0404.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0408.html > > I think it's a failure of the Decision Process that something like ISSUE-101 can be an ISSUE. I agree it's a problem that editorial matters need such an expensive escalation process. The way to avoid this problem is to resolve the issues earlier, and not to pretend there is no problem. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 08:01:07 UTC