- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 10:38:03 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
On 2012-03-16 22:55, Sam Ruby wrote: > On 03/16/2012 05:43 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >>> On 03/16/2012 05:22 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 21:46:40 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. >>>> <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> At the request of the chairs, I'd like to reiterate my opposal to >>>>> reverting this. Same reasons as before. >>>> >>>> To make it more explicit, I also object to reverting this per prior >>>> given arguments. >>> >>> I encourage all those who might oppose this revert request to respond >>> to the >>> existing call for proposals on ISSUE-201: >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0267.html >> >> I am not ready to respond to that issue. I'd wait until Hixie is done >> with his edits, as I agree with what he's doing on this front (I >> helped somewhat in designing them). > > If this feature is not ready for HTML5, there always is HTML.next. > ... I thought we are past Last Call, and have been for many months now? What is the criterion for new things to be "ready for HTML5"? Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 17 March 2012 09:38:44 UTC