- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 07:24:25 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
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: >>>> >>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0005.html >>> >>> 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