Felix, Serge,
Not sure if I understand Serge properly, but did he not say that he
inadvertently filed a formal objection?
Is there a way to verify what kind of vote Serge actually did cast? Is
there a URL where members can see the results of the ballot?
Thanks
dF
Dr. David Filip
=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
*cellphone: +353-86-0222-158*
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi Serge,
>
> no worries about this, I think this should be ok - otherwise I'll come
> back to you. Thanks for the follow up and sorry for disturbing you during
> travel.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
> Am 24.10.13 01:19, schrieb Serge Gladkoff:
>
> Dear Felix,****
>
> ** **
>
> I was travelling this and the previous weeks extensively with occasional
> WiFi access from public locations, and I cast Logrus vote in a hurry
> choosing the option which is not quite correct.****
>
> ** **
>
> I would like to fix it, if at all possible.****
>
> ** **
>
> Specifically, in question 6, I should have been choosing "suggests
> changes, but supports publication as a W3C Recommendation whether or not
> the changes are adopted (your details below)."****
>
> ** **
>
> In explanation I wanted actually to note that: "We need to publish, but
> make changes, since an inconsistency was found between the schema and the
> specification about the values allowed for the lineBreakType attribute. In
> Logrus opinion, the fix in the schema is only an editorial change. The list
> of allowed values for that attribute has been discussed and set a while
> back. The change does not affect implementations. In addition, we suggest
> to make the schema non-normative to avoid issues like the above in the
> future. This also will not influence implementations since the schema is
> not referenced normatively from the section of conformance."****
>
> ** **
>
> Would it still be possible to change Logrus vote on this – it’s minor
> change, I guess.****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> Serge Gladkoff****
>
> Logrus LLC****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org <fsasaki@w3.org>]
> *Sent:* Monday, October 14, 2013 7:32 AM
> *To:* Des Oates; Ankit Srivastava; John Judge; Nicoletta Calzolari;
> oreste.signore@isti.cnr.it; Clemens Weins; Yves Savourel; Georg Rehm;
> tadej.stajner@ijs.si; "Pedro L. Díez Orzas"; Serge Gladkoff; Daniel
> Grasmick; Jan Nelson; Milan Karasek; Lieske, Christian; dave lewis; Jirka
> Kosek; Dr. David Filip; Phil Ritchie; Lieske, Christian
> *Cc:* public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
> *Subject:* Moving ITS 2.0 forward - your action needed by 21 October
> latest****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear ITS 2.0 supporters,
>
> I had mentioned that we can move ITS 2.0 to PR, and your help would be
> very helpful.
>
> For organizations that do not implement ITS 2.0 but having your AC rep
> filling in this form
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/ITS20PR2013/
> by *21 October* would be great. NOTE: this is a hard deadline, but
> filling in the form will take only 5 minutes.
>
> For the implementers (for the others this is optional): it is important
> that you state the following in the form:
> - in question 6, choose "suggests changes, but supports publication as a
> W3C Recommendation whether or not the changes are adopted (your details
> below)."
> - as an explanation say something like:
> "An inconsistency was found between the schema and the specification about
> the values allowed for the lineBreakType attribute.
> In our opinion, the fix in the schema is only an editorial change.
> The list of allowed values for that attribute has been discussed and set a
> while back. The change does not affect implementations. In addition, we
> suggest to make the schema non-normative to avoid issues like the above in
> the future. This also will not influence implementations since the schema
> is not referenced normatively from the conformance section"
>
> Above is taken from an existing AC review and adapted - if needed please
> re-do the review by filling in the form again.
>
> Doing the above is quite important to express that our group is definitely
> OK with the change.
>
> Thanks again for all the support,
>
> Felix****
>
>
>