Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-56 urls-webarch (correction)

On 03/19/2011 10:58 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> The Subject of this letter says ISSUE-56, but the content is ISSUE-88.

My bad.  The text I originally meant to post follows.

- Sam Ruby


The decision follows.  The chairs made an effort to explicitly address
all arguments presented in the Change Proposals on this topic in
addition to arguments posted as objections in the poll.

*** Question before the Working Group ***

There is a basic disagreement in the group as how the HTML5 and the IRI
specifications are to be aligned, and in fact whether or not it makes
sense to to do.  The result was an issue, three change proposals, and a

=== Evaluation of objections

We find the following objection as expressed in the survey to be

   I strongly object to relying on IRIBIS, because the IETF WG has
   failed to deliver on its promised schedule. (Note that the proposal
   linked to here is over a year old!)

As this objection applied to the first two change proposals, our
attention turned to evaluating the objections to the third proposal.
After identifying a number of arguments which we are unable to consider
(see below for details), we were unable to find any objections to the
proposal to restore the removed text.

*** Decision of the Working Group ***

Therefore, the HTML Working Group hereby adopts the Change Proposal to
restore the removed text that explained how to translate input strings
contained in text/html documents into URIs.  Of the Change Proposals
before us, this one has drawn the weaker objections.

== Next Steps ==

Bug 8207 is to be REOPENED and marked as WGDecision.

Since the prevailing Change Proposal does call for a spec change, the
editor is hereby directed to make the changes in accordance to the
change proposal.  Once those changes are made, ISSUE-56 is to be marked

== Appealing this Decision ==

If anyone strongly disagrees with the content of the decision and would
like to raise a Formal Objection, they may do so at this time. Formal
Objections are reviewed by the Director in consultation with the Team.
Ordinarily, Formal Objections are only reviewed as part of a transition
request.  Note that Formal Objections that do not provide substantive
arguments or rationale are unlikely to receive serious consideration by
the Director.

== Revisiting this Issue ==

This issue can be reopened if new information come up.  An example of
possible relevant new information include:

* IETF completing production of a document suitable as a formal

== Arguments not considered

The following argument was not considered for the reason specified:

   "The removed text was a complete fantasy"

This argument is entirely lacking in specifics.

   "To make progress, we should go back to the drawing board and turn
   Roy's proposed text into a concrete change proposal."

We only evaluate concrete proposals that are actually received.  This
issue was raised in June of 2008.  A call for alternate or counter
proposals was issued in March of 2010.  Since that time, not a single
Working Group member converted that proposed text into a concrete
change proposal.  Without a concrete change proposal, we can't evaluate
the proposed change for completeness.  Without a complete proposal, we
can't reasonably solicit objections.  Without soliciting objections, we
can't chose the proposal that attracts the weakest objections.

Received on Saturday, 19 March 2011 15:37:44 UTC