- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:12:30 +0000
- 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>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Message-ID: <CA+ri+V=0kC=0WDsshE97Dy6+UN-Y+p86FPMcB0YabzqnUdZohA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Sam, I personally have put aside other work to get the specs I edit ready on time for publication, only to be told again, at the last minute the urgency was a mirage. The process appears somewhat farcical as nobody has even hinted that they will produce a change proposal for Issue 201, The likely person to produce a proposal (Hixie) does not appear to be interested in partcipating in the process, yet heartbeat publication has been deferred a second time when it is already way over due. Why haven't the chairs made a public call to hixie and co to ask them if there is any intention to produce a proposal? Surely a yes/no answer cannot be that hard to elicit? If there is no intention the working group could move on. regards Stevef On 20 March 2012 02:40, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > 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<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 > > > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com | www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 10:13:27 UTC