- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 07:40:02 -0400
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: "Michael Smith (tm)" <mike@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 09/24/2010 07:12 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > Sam Ruby, Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:28:42 -0400: >> On 09/23/2010 08:45 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >>> Sam Ruby, Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:49:29 -0400: >>>> On 09/23/2010 07:19 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >>>>> Sam Ruby, Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:12:51 -0400: >>>>>> The poll is available here, and it will run through Wednesday, >>>>>> October 7th(*): >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-41-objection-poll/ >>>>> >>>>> Co-Chairs and Mike, >>>>> >>>>> Reading the socalled "zero-edit" proposal ("heavy-edit" would have been >>>>> more accurate names), I discovered info that we have not had in time. >>>> >>>> The only relevant question at this point is whether the poll should >>>> be withdrawn, proposals updated, and then reissued. >>> >>> I suggest that it should be delayed, yes. >>> >>> .... >>>>> Firstly: The proposal referred to as 'zero-edit', consequently speaks >>>>> about Microddata as a "feature" (a feature of HTML), while whereas >>>>> HTML5+RDFa is presented as "applicable specification"extension. Draw >>>>> you own conclusions. Even if I would have agreed with that proposal, >>>>> those comments would hinder me from adding any support. >>>> >>>> *shrug* People sometimes believe strange things that are at odds >>>> with reality. Unless those words appear in the document someplace, I >>>> don't think that is relevant. >>> >>> It appears in the document many places: >> >> Feel free to object to it. > > "Unless those words appear in the document someplace" > > We are supposed to give technically related response, but you suggest I > use space in the poll to object to a political matter. You seem to be objecting to the change proposal. There is a box for such objections. If this objection is relevant, it will be considered. In any case, I will strongly discourage this point being discussed further on this list. > http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/thread.html >>> >>> That commit is about "vendor--". I complained that it is impossible to >>> find "_vendor-". (I had already found "vendor--".) I'm interested if >>> you find _vendor. >> >> I continue to see _vendor- on that page. >> >> $ curl -s >> > http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/thread.html >> | grep _vendor- | wc -l >> 1 > > I take that as a signal that you, like me, are unable to find the time > when _vendor was inserted into the spec. (That _vendor since was > changed to vendor-- is undisputed.) Perhaps the following commit is the one you are looking for: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/004101.html >> We have current allowed for two weeks. Can you state how much time >> you feel would be necessary to study this proposal? > > Those two weeks are for the voters. I think the CP authors should get > 3-4 weeks to see if they need to update their proposals. Thereafter, > the poll can be restarted. I will also consider reactivating my own > proposal. I just want to be clear: you are asking for a delay because somebody *might* want to create yet another proposal? - Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 24 September 2010 11:40:35 UTC