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

RE: request to re-open issue 133 due to submission of a change proposal.

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:16:31 -0800 (PST)
To: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Steve Faulkner'" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Paul Cotton'" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "'Cynthia Shelly'" <cyns@microsoft.com>, "'E.J. Zufelt'" <everett@zufelt.ca>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'HTMLWG WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <014901cbc266$0f849130$2e8db390$@edu>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Nothing I have said precludes anybody from proposing counter proposals
> at this time or for people to work towards amicable consensus.  All
> that
> is being stated at this time is that resolving this issue is not
> considered a prerequisite for advancing to last call.

I guess then that it would also be true that the *lack* of resolving this
issue could impact on advancing *beyond* Last Call. Seems to me that
postponing outstanding problems until after the Last Call date will simply
mean that the Last Call period will be longer than some might hope. C'est
le guerre.

So while I appreciate that there is a timeline that the Chairs are working
towards enforcing, it does not remove the fact that this (like the
<hgroup> issue) needs to be worked out. If the Chairs feel that it is more
productive to delay this conversation until some future date, well, I
guess it is certainly within their purview to do so, but delay does not
equal resolve and these issues won't just magically disappear.

Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 23:17:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:09 UTC