W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

RE: Revert request for r5981, and moving forward on ISSUE-129

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "'Richard Schwerdtfeger'" <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "'Steve Faulkner'" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Paul Cotton'" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "'HTMLWG WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, <public-html-request@w3.org>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Message-ID: <01a601cbf89b$b3458c50$19d0a4f0$@edu>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> We have two requests to revert the change attempting to implement the
> ISSUE-129 decision, specifically,
> <http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5980&to=5981>. There seems
> to be ongoing debate about the correct changes to make. Given the two
> requests and the ongoing controversy, we are inclined to grant the
> request. At the same time, because this is a WG decision, it is
> to ultimately make a change to implement the decision.
> Therefore:
> 1) We request timely revert of revision 5981 as a temporary measure:
> <http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5980&to=5981>
> 2) We ask that any further approaches to applying this decision should
> posted to the WG first for review; either full spec text or a diff
posted to
> the WG would be sufficient.
> 3) If there are inconsistencies or unintended consequences that go
> matters of interpreting the decision, we request that anyone identifying
> should file bugs.

While I applaud the Chairs for ensuring we get this right, I am concerned
that a specific timeline has not been articulated here. Can we have the
Chairs assurances that this will be dealt with and resolved *before* the
May 22 deadline?

I think that it would be helpful if, when requesting "...further
approaches to applying this decision should be posted..." that a deadline
for those postings be identified, and that a revised decision date also be
indicated. Having been burned once before on a 'confusion' around states
and dates, I would like to ensure that this Working Group not be subjected
to that kind of imprecision again.


Received on Monday, 11 April 2011 22:57:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:36 UTC