Re: ISSUE-124: rel-limits - Straw Poll for Objections

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 02/28/2011 05:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > > On 02/28/2011 04:11 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > The point that is being made here is that your CP introduces the
> > > > problem anew in HTML. If the chairs adopt the proposal as written, I
> > > > would expect to subsequently file bugs to fix the proposal to actually
> > > > be well-defined again. (Since I do not think that the proposal is an
> > > > improvement to the Web, however, I have not spent the time to work out
> > > > how one would go about doing that yet.)
> > > 
> > > Does Philip's stated objection sufficiently cover this point?
> > 
> > No idea.
> 
> In which case I encourage you (and everybody, for that matter) to ensure 
> that whatever points you feel need to be made here are made (or 
> referenced) by the survey itself.

I do not believe I have any points to make that are relevant to the survey 
that are not in my change proposal. I don't have a problem with the 
working group adopting an incomplete proposal that is later fixed through 
bug reports; many proposals start off incomplete and are later fixed as 
problems are discovered. I was just attempting to clarify the situation 
for Julian's benefit.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 00:00:46 UTC