- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:47:15 -0800
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Jan 24, 2013, at 2:42 AM, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> wrote: > On 24/01/2013 07:20, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >> I think it would be useful to publish that document. Creating an >> extension spec is the best path to getting this change into HTML5, >> if you can get implementation support. > > Grumble. OK I think then the next step is that I ask the chairs to > make a call for consensus for publishing that as a FPWD from this WG Request noted. We'll consider this as part of the next round of publications. > >> For HTML 5.1, you could just file a bug to be considered by the new >> set of editors > > You mean a new separate bug in bugzilla separate for the one that's > currently linked to the tracker issue (and separate from the original > one that was against the whatwg spec before all the bugs were > cloned/split?) That seems highly suboptimal for anyone reporting a bug, > surely the bug should only need be reported once, and it is the > editors' decision at what version the fix can be handled 5.0 5.x (or > never). You can use the "Clone this Bug" feature in bugzilla to easily make a copy of the bug report in a new component, or you can reopen the existing bug and move it to the "HTML 5.1" component. Up to you. I think cloning would be cleaner in this case. Or I can make the clone for you if you'd rather not do the mechanics, so long as you point me to the original. FWIW in my day job we clone bugs all the time to track resolution for multiple releases, when there is a stable branch and a trunk. So it doesn't seem like an undue burden to me. Perhaps it does to others though. Cheers, Maciej
Received on Friday, 25 January 2013 05:47:49 UTC