Re: The plan for ISSUE-131 / bug 11239

On Tue, 3 May 2011, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> We have had two proposed diffs to resolve this issue:
> 
> 1) Rich's diff, attached here: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0657.html -- so 
> far, no one has objected that the diff does not correctly implement the 
> WG Decision on ISSUE-131.

You don't consider this an objection?:

   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11239#c21

Rich's diff has very little bearing on the CP and the decision. I most 
strongly object to the working group adopting text that has as many 
mistakes as that text, especially considering it was not even considered 
by the chairs when making the decision, and considering that the CP's 
details section does not even mention the majority of the changes in the 
diff. It would be most unproper, and far more importantly, would cause 
massive damage to the accessibility features in the canvas specification.


> 2) Ian's diff, attached to 
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11239 -- this has had a 
> series of revisions based on comments. The latest version still has some 
> objections from Rich: 
> <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11239#c30>.

Ah, nobody told me there was new material. I have responded.

(I go though bugs in the order they were least-recently modified, so if 
you would like me to jump to a specific bug, please let me know.)

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

Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 18:46:57 UTC