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

Applying the ISSUE-131 decision

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:14:36 -0700
Message-id: <3DCBF3A1-5EF0-40E2-A067-47302E9F84B3@apple.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

Hello Ian,

You have expressed concerns about applying the ISSUE-131 decision[1], both on this list and in bugzilla:

I think it is a valid point that the Change Proposal Details are potentially ambiguous. It is not clear whether the numbered list is authoritative and the spec text is a suggestion; or if the spec text is a suggestion and the numbered list is simply advisory and non-authoritative. I interpreted it the former way, although looking at it now it seems the latter interpretation may make more sense.

However, per W3C Process, and notwithstanding your concerns about the content, the decision stands until and unless the issue is reopened based on new information.


(1) If WG members have objections to something that is in the provided spec text and is not mentioned in the numbered list in Details or supported in the Rationale of Rich's Change Proposal, we believe it is reasonable to make a request to reopen the issue on that basis. However, as with other issues subject to a request to reopen, we would expect the decision to be applied as-is in the meantime. We would also find it acceptable to file follow-up bugs on such details.

(2) The Chairs at this time are asking for the decision to be applied. We would accept Rich's proposed diff, and we would also find it acceptable if you provide your own diff based on the numbered points and the delta in the decision. We expect *either* Rich's diff to be applied *or* an alternate proposed diff to be sent to public-html within 48 hours. Otherwise, the Chairs and the Team will take more direct means to see that the decision is applied.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0271.html

P.S. Your objections on the basis of the caret / selection API not doing drawing are addressed directly in the decision. As the decision states, the case was not made that having nothing whatsoever is better than having a non-drawing API; and the possibility was left open to upgrade to a drawing API via follow-on bugs. That being said, if you have relevant new information on this point, the proper next step would be a request to reopen. I mention this explicitly because those changes clearly aren't "unsupported by the CP and mentioned by the decision", whatever you may think of any other details of the text.
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2011 02:15:05 UTC

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