Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-88 content-language-multiple

On 03/19/2011 01:02 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Sam Ruby, Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:30:03 -0400:
>> On 03/19/2011 12:19 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>>
>>> Options which could make the situation simpler:
>>
>> If you have new information to present, please consider taking the
>> steps which are described here:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11447#c3
>
> Since we took the poll, diminishing the difference between XML and
> HTML5 has gotten higher on my priority list. And, this decision *does*
> take a step in that direction. Given that we have taken that step, we
> should perhaps go the line out.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that a change to the
> language determination algorithm would be another issue than the
> particular conformance requirement that we now have decided upon.
> Likewise, making html@lang obligatory would also be another issue, it
> seems. (I guess, if included in the change proposals that we voted on,
> then such options *could* have been part of the ISSUE-88, but in fact,
> they weren't.)

The first rule, and one that supersedes all other rules, is that any 
proposal that attracts no objections can be adopted by the Working Group 
at any time.

As to new proposals that could have been a part of ISSUE-88, in general 
the purpose of a Decision is not to have the effect of being treated as 
a new call for proposals.  Issue 88 was raised in October of 2009, 
change proposals were received between January and April of 2010, and 
the survey was issued in June.  We believe that adequate time has been 
given for everybody to participate.

At this point the standard for evaluation of new proposals is to only do 
so in response to the reopening of the issue either due to being 
presented with new information or due to action by the Director, for 
example in response to a Formal Objection.

I do not expect that "diminishing the difference between XML and HTML5 
has gotten higher on my priority list" would be treated as new information.

Finally, any new issues would need to start out as bug reports, and any 
such bug reports opened at this time would be considered as Last Call 
comments.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Saturday, 19 March 2011 17:28:24 UTC