- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:02:24 +0100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 04.02.2011 15:54, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:08:45 +0100, Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> 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? If he agrees, and makes that change, and people complain, then he'll be asked to revert the change (that's my understanding about changes that reduce the consensus). >> 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. What's easy is not always the same thing as what's right. Anyway, let's wait for what the chairs have to say. Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 4 February 2011 15:03:06 UTC