- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:23:39 -0400
- To: HTML WG LIST <public-html@w3.org>
At this time, we find that we have consensus on the following proposal for ISSUE-165: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jul/0124.html Bug 12224 will be REOPENED and marked as WGDecision. Once the editor has made the change, ISSUE-165 will be CLOSED. - Sam Ruby On 08/17/2011 10:10 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On 07/11/2011 07:12 PM, Paul Cotton wrote: >> ISSUE-165: rel-pingback - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or >> Counter-Proposals >> >> The current status for ISSUE-165 is as follows: >> >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/165 >> >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-165 >> >> We currently have one Change Proposal to handle this issue: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jul/0124.html >> >> At this time the Chairs would also like to solicit alternate Change >> Proposals (possibly with "zero edits" as the Proposal Details), in case >> anyone would like to advocate the status quo or a different change than >> the specific one in the existing Change Proposal. >> >> If no counter-proposals or alternate proposals are received by Aug 9th, >> 2011, we will proceed to evaluate the change proposal that we have >> received to date for ISSUE-165. > > Current status: we have received an Change Proposal to remove subsection > "4.12.4.10 Link type "pingback" and the related entry under "4.12.4 Link > types": > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jul/0124.html > > As we have received no counter-proposals or alternate > proposals, the chairs are issuing a call for consensus on the proposal > that we do have. If anybody would like to raise an objection during > this time, we will require them to accompany their objection with a > concrete and complete change proposal. > > If no objections are raised to this call by August 24th 2011, we will > direct the editor to make the proposed change, and will only consider > subsequently reopening this issue based on new information and a > complete change proposal based on the spec's contents as it exists after > this change is applied. > > - Sam Ruby >
Received on Friday, 26 August 2011 19:24:12 UTC