- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 22:40:37 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
On 03/16/2012 05:55 PM, 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. After conferring with my co-chairs, if no Change Proposal is produced in response to issue 201, we will proceed to a Call for Consensus on the Change Proposal that we do have. As a part of that Call for Consensus. Should that Call for Consensus pass, we will request that r7023 be reverted. >> ~TJ > > - Sam Ruby - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 02:41:10 UTC