Re: Revert request for r6574

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Paul Cotton wrote:
> We have multiple requests to revert change r6574, and they included 
> plausible rationale.
> Therefore:
> 1) We ask for a revert of this change to be completed no later than the 
> end of day on the 14th of October.  If this revert is not complete by 
> that time, we will instruct W3C staff to make this change.
> 2) The HTML WG Chairs again ask that those who may wish to revisit the 
> decision for issue 129, do so by providing New Information, as requested 
> by the decision:

Since the decision in question was explicitly based on the chairs failing 
to understand the provided information by their own admission [1], I find 
this repeated application of this decision to changes that do include new 
information and valid rationales to be objectionable. It should be pointed 
out that the chairs never responded to my request for advice in that 
thread, so it is unsurprising that we have had so many problems on this 
topic since the decision.

I therefore raise a formal objection to these revert requests and to the 
original decision. The technical grounds for this objection have been 
presented before, both in the e-mail cited above [1], and in the original 
CCP [2], as well as in the bugs that led to the changes that were reverted 
[3][4]; the proposed changes that would lead to this formal objection 
being addressed consist of reverting r6634 and r6666, and rescinding the 
decision to issue 219, thus allowing fixes similar those reverts to be 
applied in the future.


Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 23:45:03 UTC