- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:41:03 +0200
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org> (tm), Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
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(*): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 be withdrawn, proposals updated, and then reissued.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. 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: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10717 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10718 > Perhaps the following commit is the one you are looking for: > > http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/004101.html Indeed. As Masata's messages shows,[*] the editor had a dialogue with himself. [*] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0275.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? 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 texts. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 24 September 2010 12:42:03 UTC