- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:14:13 -0400
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
- Cc: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> I still do not like that wording because the reasons for marking several of t > he > different features as "at risk" have little to do with them being implemented > . > "Based of feedback" is a much more neutral and acceptable wording. I'm fine with that, especially for this Last Call transition. I may want to push more for implementation-oriented wording at the next step (which is Candidate Recommendation, the call for implementations). -- Sandro > If we retain the present wording then I would insist on reexamining the reaso > ns behind marking each particular feature as "at risk" so that only the featu > res that truly depend on the availability of implementations would be marked > as such. > > > --michael > > > On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:25:19 -0400 > Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote: > > > > > > I updated the working a little bit. I believe this is the formal definit > ion > > > of what "at risk" means. > > > > I see you changed > > > > This feature is "at risk" and will be removed from this > > specification if not sufficiently implemented > > > > to > > > > This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from this specification > > based on implementation experience. > > > > which I'm fine with. The governing language about this matter [1] is > > reached by clicking on "at risk" in that message, but it's not 100% > > clear. > > > > > Michael Kifer wrote: > > > > I object to the current formulation of the At Risk notes. > > > > What does it mean "if not sufficiently implemented"? > > > > It is not sufficiently clear to me. > > > > Also, features #1,2,3, in BLD and the ones in DTB have all different > > > > reasons for being marked at risk. > > > > Does Chris' re-wording solve the problem? If not, can you be more > > clear about what's unclear? (sorry, but I can't figure out how to be > > more clear from just this.) > > > > -- Sandro > > > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi > >
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 20:15:53 UTC