- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 14:12:17 -0400
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- CC: public-w3process@w3.org
On 09/08/2014 01:52 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 9/8/14 1:04 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> Given that (a) the person who opened this issue indicated that he was >> opposed to it > > Hi Sam, sorry but I'm not following you here. Simply put: is anybody in favor of making the change that this issue purports to propose? If not, it should be summarily closed IMHO. > I created the Issue and besides the scenario Jeff mentioned, Point of order: it was the scenario that you mentioned: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0045.html > the other > scenario I recall is the Progress Events spec needing to replace a > normative reference to a WHATWG spec before the PR was allowed to be > published. I suppose one could certainly argue if the decision (to not > permit such references) is made by the AC, the CEO, the Director, ... > and/or some combination. Regardless, since this is indeed the practice > (again, as I have experienced it), I think it would be helpful to > clearly document this practice in the NRP so other actors (Chairs, > Editors, Public, etc.) know about this constraint (PRs cannot include > normative references to WHATWG specs) and can plan accordingly. I can't speak to that scenario, but I will support Jeff's assertion that your comments regarding the current state of WHATWG's URL specification were inaccurate. Can you provide a link which describes to what normative reference the Progress Events specification proved to be problematic and why? > -AB > > [1] <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/team-webapps/2013Nov/0021.html> - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 8 September 2014 18:12:40 UTC