- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:35:12 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org
On 04/29/2011 03:22 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> On Apr 28, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: >>>> >>>> Ian: could we perhaps specify to return -1 in this case? >>> >>> What case is this case, exactly? An example would be most helpful. >> >> Could we get at least temporary agreement on -1 so we can get the >> decision applied, and pursue the discussion of whether the "no setting" >> case should return -1 or a hardcoded UA-chosen value? It seems like the >> no setting case is likely to be an edge case, so we can take our time >> refining it. > > The decision doesn't mention a case where one needs to return -1. As far > as I can tell the "no setting" case doesn't exist, so I don't see why we > would add it to the spec. Ian, I encourage you to read Maciej's note[1] carefully, specifically: > you provide your own diff based on the numbered points and the delta > in the decision If you fail to produce a diff as instructed, we will likely proceed with the only diff provided[2] that does meet this criteria. Improvements that meet with consensus are fine. An example would be changing the name of the method[3]. Maciej's instincts are that replacing wording which does not specify a particular negative number with a specific negative number could very well meet with consensus. I concur. But at this point if you wish to reopen the issue and discuss alternatives over there isn't consensus; and wish to do so based on objections which were not provided during the call for change proposals or in response to the survey, the way to do that is via new information and a new change proposal[4]. But first, we need to have this decision applied. - Sam Ruby [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0673.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0657.html [3] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11239#c25 [4] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11447
Received on Friday, 29 April 2011 15:35:47 UTC