W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2011

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

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 21:28:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOACb=+0XP+aZOJSWPHr+Sd0ZCMEoxKaSfM7O8bmUuY=cEbp8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 20:00, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 11/18/2011 08:12 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> I believe the full set of four change proposals that I have listed at:
>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik#change_proposals
>> now cover the edits that the editor is proposing.
>> I will also note that there have been additional contributions to the
>> data element change proposal Rationale[1] by Tab Atkins that attempt
>> to document advantages of the data element over other proposed
>> alternatives (e.g. a global value/content/itempropvalue attribute). I
>> hope that documentation helps us reach consensus.
>> I think we should move for a call for consensus / counter-proposals on
>> those four change proposals at this time.
> The next time the co-chairs are scheduled to meet is Monday at 4PM Eastern.
>  In the interrim, some informal (unvetted) feedback:
> 1) If you decline to separate out the proposed patches and align them with
> the proposals, the chairs will in all likelihood decline to do so on your
> behalf.

I believe the updated patches proposed by the editor should help with this.

That being said, I'm willing to first work towards a broader consensus
across all 4 issues.

> 2) I've already pointed out at least one instance where the patch and the
> proposals are inconsistent.  Failure to address problems such as these means
> that a call for consensus is premature.

I accept your assessment that a call for consensus is premature.

However I believe that the updated patches proposed by the editor are
consistent with the change proposals on the specific points you made
(First the "goes beyond the change proposals in scope", presumably in
reference to the year-week enhancement, now covered by issue 4. And
second, the point about omitting a schema.org example, now covered by
the updated patch by the editor.) If there are other instances where
the updated patch and the proposals are inconsistent, please let me
know and I will work to address the inconsistencies.

> I encourage you to complete the split as you outlined.  Furthermore, I
> encourage you to seek broader consensus.

I believe it may be more efficient in this case to first seek the
broader consensus as you advise.



>> Thanks,
>> Tantek
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik/data_element#Rationale
> - Sam Ruby

http://tantek.com/ - I made an HTML5 tutorial! http://tantek.com/html5
Received on Monday, 21 November 2011 05:29:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:45 UTC