- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:08:45 +0100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 04.02.2011 11:32, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:13:25 +0100, Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> See >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jan/0410.html> - >> it would be nice if the chairs could clarify whether the >> counter-proposal actually is acceptable - I believe it is not. > > It affects the same text. If he wants to make this change what other > path is there? If someone writes a no-change counter proposal and the WG He could raise a separate bug. > endorses that or endorses your proposal having a later issue remove all > that text seems disingenuous. Not necessarily, if the WG decides that. What I have trouble with is the situation where a bug asks for an editorial clarification and is hijacked to remove a certain aspect of the spec altogether. I have no problem with discussing this, and the WG deciding on it, but I believe piggybacking it on issue 145 is problematic. Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 4 February 2011 11:09:25 UTC