Re: Updating Change Proposals for ISSUE-183 enhance-time

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <> wrote:
> Hello Rich & Frank,
> We have been holding further processing of ISSUE-183 caret-location-api until the closely related blocking ISSUE-184 could be resolved. The decision for ISSUE-184 has now been published:

There seems to be some persistent cross-confusion of ISSUE-183 and
ISSUE-205. The two are unrelated as far as i am aware but i note
repeated mislabeling in both. I have regarded as simple copy-paste
errors but the continued presence of such errors is confusing and so,
if it is coming from automated systems, if someone can look to fix the
discrepancy both issues will read easier.

> At this time, the Chairs would like to know if, based on this decision, you plan to revise or withdraw either of your Change Proposals for ISSUE-183:
> In particular, Cameron's proposal appears, at first blush, to be potentially invalidated by the decision of ISSUE-184. It called for using the feature at stake in ISSUE-184 to replace the <time> element, but that proposed new feature was rejected.
> If you would like to make revisions, please let the Chairs know by Tuesday, July 24th, and let us know how long you require. If we haven't heard by then, we'll assume both Change Proposals will remain live and unmodified and we will consider the issue ready for survey or further evaluation. Cameron's proposal may, in such circumstances, be rejected if the Chairs deem it moot.
> Regards,
> Maciej

Since ISSUE-184 has been closed and it was a prerequisite for
recommending the removal of <time>, i hereby withdraw the counter
proposal for this issue to alleviate the group from inconsequential

The reason for removing <time> is not due to an objection with its
need or use cases, but of the element being superseded by a more
comprehensive solution. As the solution is not being adopted from the
current proposal, the arguments for removing <time> only fall to that
of "future considerations" and such that immediate practical benefit
of marking up date\time information would be uncatered for. This is an
untenable argument and as such i will not advocate it.

The caveat to this is that if new information should be accepted for
ISSUE-184, this will re-introduce the points which have been rendered
moot within the proposal for removing the <time> element and i would
ask for this proposal to be re-accepted and the arguments presented to
be examined for an alternate resolution of this issue.

Cameron Jones

Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 14:28:49 UTC