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

Re: ISSUE-145 codecs-vs-octet - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:54:12 +0100
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vqdvolak64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:08:45 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
> On 04.02.2011 11:32, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> endorses that or endorses your proposal having a later issue remove all
>> that text seems disingenuous.
> Not necessarily, if the WG decides that.

What if the editor simply agrees with him?

> 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.

It seems easier to me than the alternative.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Friday, 4 February 2011 14:54:57 UTC

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