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

rel=archives (was: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-118 broken-link-types)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 08:19:07 -0500
Message-ID: <4D6E43CB.5040001@intertwingly.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/02/2011 03:28 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 01.03.2011 08:25, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> ...
>>> However, it seems that the accepted proposal suggests not changing a
>>> few of the relations about what the ISSUE originally was opened; we
>>> may have to revisit them.
>> The Change Proposal adopted is
>> this:<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Nov/0042.html>.
>> Its Details section says:
>>>>> Remove all prose relating to the following link types: index, up,
>>>>> first, last.
>> This would include, by my understanding, removal of the Synonyms
>> sections of those definitions, which include the synonyms "top",
>> "contents", "toc", "begin", "start" and "end".
>> ...
> Sigh.
> So the Ian has also removed the relation "archives", which was a
> separate bug, not discussed at all, and already is in the IANA registry.
> See <http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5924&to=5925>.
> I believe this change doesn't increase consensus, also is not subject to
> the WG decision, and thus should be reverted.

I don't follow this logic.

 From a process perspective, you are claiming that Ian made a change 
that is not subject to the WG decision, was not discussed at all, and 
yet was a separate bug.  In the first case, it is unclear to me why you 
are choosing to report such in a reply thread to the decision.  In the 
latter cases, if there was a bug report (I have yet to find one), it 
constitutes discussion; and if there was not, we have yet to require bug 
reports.  If you would like to discuss this further, I would suggest 
that you either open a bug on the Decision Policy, or add a comment to 
this bug:


On the technical side, all we have here is an assertion that this 
doesn't increase consensus.  To date I have heard zero technical 
objections to this change and would not be predisposed to considering 
any request for revert without at least one clearly stated objection.

If you do decide to state an objection, I encourage you to refer to the 
"Enhanced change control after the Last Call cutoff"[1].  Be prepared to 
make the case that this change is "exceptional" as we "do not expect it 
to be used casually over random changes".

If it helps, we do have a recent example of such an exceptional change 
that caused the chairs to request a revert[2].

> Best regards, Julian

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0125.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0483.html
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 13:19:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:33 UTC