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

Re: CfC: close ISSUE-119 rel-repetition by amicable resolution

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:39:48 +0000 (UTC)
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1101181935370.28618@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 12/01/2010 07:34 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > The current status for this issue:
> > 
> > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/119
> > http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-119
> > 
> > We have a single change proposal to make the "up" link relation
> > compatible with the existing IANA definition:
> > 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Oct/0307.html
> > 
> > At this time the Chairs would also like to solicit alternate Change
> > Proposals (possibly with "zero edits" as the Proposal Details), in case
> > anyone would like to advocate the status quo or a different change than
> > the specific one in the existing Change Proposals.
> > 
> > If no counter-proposals or alternate proposals are received by January
> > 12th, 2011, we will proceed to evaluate the change proposal that we have
> > received to date.
> As we have received no counter-proposals or alternate proposals, the chairs
> are issuing a call for consensus on the proposal that we do have.  If no
> objections are raised to this call by 26 January 2011, we will direct the
> editor to make the proposed change.  If anybody would like to raise an
> objection during this time, we strongly encourage them to accompany their
> objection with a concrete and complete change proposal.

My apologies. I thought I had e-mailed about this a few days ago, but it 
turns out I had sent my e-mail to publish-html@w3.org instead of 
public-html@w3.org! Maciej can confirm that I discussed this with him on 
IRC at the time, though.

I was about to try to write a CP for -119, when I realised I couldn't: it 
depends on the resolution to -118:

If -118 is resolved in favour of changing the definitions for up="", -119 
may either be moot or substantially changed.

If -118 is resolved in favour of removing up="", then -119's resolution 
would likely need entirely different solutions than have been considered 
so far.

If -118 is resolved in favour of the status quo, then the explanation of 
which arguments were considered convincing would significantly influence 
how a CP for -119 should be written.

Since I am rather limited in terms of what time I have available for 
writing CPs, I would rather not spend hours writing a CP that was either 
rendered moot or would subsequently have to be entirely rewritten.

Therefore, I would like to request that the chairs delay issue 119 until 
such time as issue 118 is resolved.

Apologies for my earlier mistake which meant that this request did not go 
to the list in time for the deadline.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2011 19:40:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:29 UTC