- From: Peter Winnberg <peter.winnberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 23:44:49 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, public-html@w3.org, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
2011/11/14 Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>: > The current state of these proposals is that they have less detail in the > "Proposal Details" section than we normally require. This is not a problem > if there is no contention. So the way I would like to proceed is to: > > 1) Open up three issues per the above, and so so before this week's telecon. > > 2) Immediately issue a Call for Consensus on all three proposals. > > 3) Close by Amicable Consensus any issues for which we don't get pushback > sufficient to convince the chairs that there will likely be a counter > proposal. > > 4) Proceed with a normal call for consensus on whatever issues remain (if > any). > > Does anybody object to proceeding in this fashion? > > - Sam Ruby Not really an objection but a question. I’ll start looking into creating a counter proposal to the data element proposal (if so, it will be my first so I am sure I’ll need some guidance). Instead of a new element this counter proposal would suggest how a new attribute for holding machine readable data on the span element (and maybe other elements) could work. If this counter proposal would suggest that this new attribute should replace the datetime attribute on the time element (I have not made up my mind if this a good idea or not yet) should that be a separate counter proposal or could that be a part of the counter proposal to the data element? - Peter Winnberg
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 22:45:17 UTC