- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:09:44 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "Ennals, Robert" <robert.ennals@intel.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On Mar 15, 2010, at 9:48 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Ennals, Robert wrote: >> >> Proposal Y: tries to give a better fallback and backwards-compat >> story: >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/fixedprefixsimple > > While I think this proposal is close to something that we should > probably > add to HTML5, I don't think it's "Distributed Extensibility". It > would be > more accurate to describe it as a convention for preventing vendor- > specific non-standard extensions from clashing with themselves and > future > standard development. It seems to me that this proposal adds a new extensibility mechanism, and thus is in the scope of the issue as I presented it last month: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0796.html The fact that you could also describe it in more specific terms, based on the nature and purpose of the proposed extensibility mechanism, does not make it out of scope for the issue. You are correct that ISSUE-41 is extremely broad. This issue predates not only the current process, but also any of the current set of Chairs. Under the new Decision Policy, it's unlikely we would ever again end up with such a broad scope for a single tracker issue. That being said, I don't think it would be legitimate to summarily close the issue without considering proposals. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2010 23:10:18 UTC