- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 01:49:03 -0700
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> >> On Oct 12, 2012 4:25 AM, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> > >> > On 10/11/2012 12:02 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I object to taking an Extension Specification to FPWD simply when a WG >> >> participant offers a draft. >> > >> > >> > We have never done that. We have always done a call for consensus prior >> > to publishing. >> >> The problem with making FPWD a checkpoint for "will receive HTML >> branding" is that a draft can change dramatically after that. It >> basically means that if a draft at some point receives the HTML stamp, >> it will then carry that recognition no matter what changes are made to >> it. > > > What's all this blarney about "HTML branding". Give it a break (i.e., go > read the W3C Process Document, get a life, etc.). I don't particularly care for this part of your reply. > The HTML WG will follow the well established process rules. It is up to the > W3C communications team to spin it however they like. It is up to the market > to do whatever is desired in the field. > > The so-called "Extension Specs" are products being developed by the HTML WG. > If you don't like it, take it up with your AC Rep. This doesn't seem to match the instructions from the WG chairs, who specifically requested feedback on this list, and not via AC reps. / Jonas
Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 08:50:02 UTC