Re: Revert request for r6610, and moving forward on ISSUE-129

On 10/03/2011 11:13 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 10/03/2011 07:20 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>> 1) We ask for a revert of this change to be completed no later than the
>>>> end of day on the 5th of October.  If this revert is not complete by
>>>> that time, we will instruct W3C staff to make this change.
>>>> 2) We ask that those who may wish to revisit the decision for issue 129,
>>>> do so by providing New Information, as requested by the decision:
>>> New information was provided in this case; it is listed in comment 3 of
>>> the bug in question (specifically the second paragraph). This is as was
>>> requested by the chairs.
>> I disagree that new information was provided as requested by the chairs.
> You said, when objections were raised about the decision, that if there
> were specific parts of the decision that had problems, bugs should be
> filed with the new information, to be resolved separately. That's what
> happened.

Once again, I disagree.  The posted decision is quite clear on the matter:

> Bug reports predicated on the
> assumption that use cases of adding ARIA to existing markup that mostly
> works but doesn't conform to the ideals defined by the specification
> will be summarily closed.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2011 11:24:52 UTC