- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:11:43 -0400
- To: Ian Devlin <ian@iandevlin.com>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On 09/20/2012 02:57 PM, Ian Devlin wrote: > As the author of the change proposal regarding keeping pubdate and > proposing moddate, I'm not sure I can be bothered going through the work > now required to get the blasted thing to be considered again as chances > are the goal posts will be moved once again in another few months. > > I suspect that's what's being hoped for so that the issues simply disappear. It has always been the plan, and in fact a part of the W3C process, to identify at risk features and remove them as a part of the CR phase. That has not changed. That will not change. It is not so much that we are moving the goal posts, but pointing out that beyond the next first down marker there indeed are goal posts. - Sam Ruby > On 20 September 2012 14:47, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net > <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>> wrote: > > On 09/20/2012 08:28 AM, Ian Devlin wrote: > > Thanks for that. > > So a new specification document is required to re-add a single > attribute > to an element, thus re-starting the whole process of what a previous > change request supposedly did? > > > Everything is archived, so previous arguments are captured and can > be pointed to. > > We we are doing is encouraging people to follow a process that has > long been available to everybody but one seldom chosen, perhaps > because we haven't done as good as a job as we could on education. > A process that in our experience has proven to produce less > objections and more progress. > > It is also not clear that there is merit to evaluating objections > leading to a decision which may result in a request to the editors > to insert text, and then immediately following that give the editors > instructions to begin the process of removing features considered > 'at risk'. > > In the specific case of issue 185, these two steps need to be > flipped around. In particular we need data on whether the pubdate > and moddate attributes meet the proposed CR Exit Criteria: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-html/2012Sep/__0215.html <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0215.html> > > - Sam Ruby > > On 20 September 2012 14:24, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net > <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net> > <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net > <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>__>> wrote: > > On 09/20/2012 08:19 AM, Ian Devlin wrote: > > What exactly is an "extension specification"? > > Definition can be found here: > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/____decision-policy/html5-2014-____plan.html#extension-specs > <http://dev.w3.org/html5/__decision-policy/html5-2014-__plan.html#extension-specs> > > > <http://dev.w3.org/html5/__decision-policy/html5-2014-__plan.html#extension-specs > <http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html#extension-specs>> > > Examples can be found here: > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/____decision-policy/html5-2014-____plan.html#modularity > <http://dev.w3.org/html5/__decision-policy/html5-2014-__plan.html#modularity> > > > <http://dev.w3.org/html5/__decision-policy/html5-2014-__plan.html#modularity > <http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html#modularity>> > > - Sam Ruby > > > > > -- > ian devlin > e: ian@iandevlin.com <mailto:ian@iandevlin.com> > <mailto:ian@iandevlin.com <mailto:ian@iandevlin.com>> > w: www.iandevlin.com <http://www.iandevlin.com> > <http://www.iandevlin.com> > t: @iandevlin <http://www.twitter.com/__iandevlin > <http://www.twitter.com/iandevlin>> > skype: idevlin > > buy my book: html5 multimedia: develop and design > <http://html5multimedia.com> > > > > > > -- > ian devlin > e: ian@iandevlin.com <mailto:ian@iandevlin.com> > w: www.iandevlin.com <http://www.iandevlin.com> > t: @iandevlin <http://www.twitter.com/iandevlin> > skype: idevlin > > buy my book: html5 multimedia: develop and design > <http://html5multimedia.com> >
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 19:12:11 UTC