W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2012

ISSUE-129 Formal Objection

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:29:24 +0000
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AB5704B0EEC35B4691114DC04366B37F16B69960@TK5EX14MBXC289.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> I therefore raise a formal objection to these revert requests and to the original decision.

We have recorded this formal objection to the WG decision on ISSUE-129 at:

Do you wish to maintain this Formal Objection?  If so then we will keep it on this list so that it can be presented to the W3C Director at the next transition of the HTML5 specification.  If not please let us know and we will drop it from the list.


Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:41 PM
To: Paul Cotton
Cc: Sam Ruby; Maciej Stachowiak; HTMLWG WG
Subject: Re: Revert request for r6574

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Paul Cotton wrote:
> We have multiple requests to revert change r6574, and they included 
> plausible rationale.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Oct/0037.html
> Therefore:
> 1) We ask for a revert of this change to be completed no later than 
> the end of day on the 14th of October.  If this revert is not complete 
> by that time, we will instruct W3C staff to make this change.
> 2) The HTML WG Chairs again ask that those who may wish to revisit the 
> decision for issue 129, do so by providing New Information, as 
> requested by the decision:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0005.html

Since the decision in question was explicitly based on the chairs failing to understand the provided information by their own admission [1], I find this repeated application of this decision to changes that do include new information and valid rationales to be objectionable. It should be pointed out that the chairs never responded to my request for advice in that thread, so it is unsurprising that we have had so many problems on this topic since the decision.

I therefore raise a formal objection to these revert requests and to the original decision. The technical grounds for this objection have been presented before, both in the e-mail cited above [1], and in the original CCP [2], as well as in the bugs that led to the changes that were reverted [3][4]; the proposed changes that would lead to this formal objection being addressed consist of reverting r6634 and r6666, and rescinding the decision to issue 219, thus allowing fixes similar those reverts to be applied in the future.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0027.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011Jan/att-0019/ccp-129.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13265
[4] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13291

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 8 October 2012 21:29:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:28 UTC