- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:42:10 -0700
- To: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
- Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
On Jul 25, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> wrote: > Hi Philippe, > > You wrote: > >> How about you keep your change proposal to the text you want to see in >> the spec that pertains to issue 204, and let the editors figure out >> how to apply your proposed changes? > > Doesn't my current text do that? (It points out one possible way of > applying the changes, but no longer mandates it.) FYI, I don't think those specifics are necessary or appropriate in the Change Proposal. The editors (including you now) can work out themselves how to mechanically apply the change. If doing it in two commits is the most practical way, I don't think anyone would object. But the WG only needs to judge the actual text, and we know from past experience that describing a change in two different ways in one Change Proposal can be confusing. If at all possible, let's make the CP maximally simple and clear quickly, as ISSUE-204 gates a chain of two other dependent issues. Cheers, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 03:43:27 UTC