Re: ISSUE-41: Decentralized-extensibility - Straw Poll for Objections

Sam Ruby, Fri, 24 Sep 2010 07:40:02 -0400:
> 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(*):
>>>>>> 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 be withdrawn, proposals updated, and then reissued.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.

So what did you mean by "Unless those words appear in the document 
someplace"? Empty words? I have documented hat it is in the document. 
Additionally, Julian has now documented those words appears in the 
HTML5 spec itself:

> Perhaps the following commit is the one you are looking for:

Indeed. As Masata's messages shows,[*] the editor had a dialogue with 

>>> 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?

It does not need to be created. It exists. It just needs to be updated. 
I will update my proposal. Perhaps Robert's proposers would like to 
update their proposal. And, without doubt, the co-chairs should now 
admit the zero-edit proposal again, unless it removes it controversial 
leif halvard silli

Received on Friday, 24 September 2010 12:42:03 UTC