- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 06:05:43 -0400
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On 04/15/2011 11:23 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > I'm sorry I did not read the editor's check-in [0] before. Here are two > additional points. I hope someone spots a clear way out of this ... In general, there are two basic approaches for dealing with changes that are found to be inaccurate, incomplete, or go beyond the decision in ways that are problematic: 1) Agreeing that the change is a reasonable new baseline, and working with the editor, via discussion and/or bug reports, to refine and improve the specification. 2) Objecting to a commit on the basis that it doesn't reflect the decision, and asking that it be reverted. Going forward, the closer Change Proposals can come to the ideal of "Exact spec text for the sections to be changed"[1], the less likely we will have problems such as these. - Sam Ruby [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#change-proposal
Received on Saturday, 16 April 2011 10:06:12 UTC