Re: noted 3 issues re: time/data (was Re: minutes for HTML WG f2f, 2011-11-04, part 1)

On 11/14/2011 05:44 PM, Peter Winnberg wrote:
> 2011/11/14 Sam Ruby<>:
>> 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. Iíll start looking into
> creating a counter proposal to the data element proposal (if so, it
> will be my first so I am sure Iíll 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?

What would it take for you to decide?  My intent isn't to rush anybody, 
but to see if we can avoid any unnecessary work.  For example, if there 
is nobody who wishes to defend the pubdate attribute then that issue 
need not be discussed further.

Given the issues that Tantek has outlined, it looks like you might want 
to object to up to two of the change proposals that he has produced: the 
one for the time element and that introduces the data element.

Of course even better than submitting a counter proposal would be to see 
if you and (in this case) Tantek can work together to produce a common 
proposal that you can both live with.

My recommendation: if you aren't sure on a particular aspect, it 
probably isn't worth objecting on that aspect.

> - Peter Winnberg

- Sam Ruby

Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2011 01:30:51 UTC