- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:19:05 +0100
- To: public-html@w3.org
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:59:18 +0100, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote: > I object to carrying through with that change proposal. > > I will not be writing a concrete and complete counter proposal -- because > the original bug should ever have been escalated to begin with, and in my > assessment does not merit continued attention from other members of the > group nor the W3C Team. We all have more important issues to deal with > that are genuine priorities that do actually merit our collective time > and > attention, and bugs/comments like this one are a distraction from getting > work done on those real issues. > > The right way to have dealt with this would have been for the original > bug to have been judged to be something best left up to editorial > discretion. I second this objection. This also goes for the code point bug/issue/cfc. If decisions are to be made on either of those, it should not happen here in the HTML WG as many other drafts would be affected as well. And frankly, I think we have better things to worry about than whether a reference is work in progress or not when the document itself is work in progress. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 16 December 2011 15:22:08 UTC