- From: Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
- Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:45:16 +0400
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
Sam, does it all mean something like following in essence? << Returning TIME element itself to the HTML spec as well as current enhancements by Tantek (http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik/time_element ) are approved by the HTML WG. At the same time, @pubdate attribute and need for new DATA element are yet subjects to decide. >> 09.12.2011, 16:18, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>: > On 12/08/2011 10:17 AM, Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com wrote: > >> šWith the removal of the "drop pubdate" portion, and the addition of >> šspace character as allowed alternative for "T" as date/time >> šseparator, your proposal [2] seems to be fine for me in its current >> šform. > > While the chairs do plan to give people more time to prepare proposals > and counter proposals, based on the feedback we heard in TPAC and the > (as of now) lack of pushback on the existing Change Proposal for issue > 183, the chairs have decided to švacate *JUST* the <time> portion of the > revert request[1] for change r6783. šThe portion of the revert request > which required the restoring of the pubdate attribute and the removal of > the <data> element parts still stand. > > Furthermore, we see no need to separate out a second issue[2] for the > <time> element at this time. šNor do we see a need for the existing > change proposal for an enhanced time element to be developed further > until or unless there are objections. > > We further will state that we do not intend to honor any revert requests > in the specific areas covered by the existing change proposal for the > <time> element. > >> šThanks. > > - Sam Ruby > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Nov/0011.html > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Nov/0186.html
Received on Friday, 9 December 2011 15:45:53 UTC