RE: HTML WG last call comment on http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-webarch-20040816/

I agree with Dan.  XLink is a W3C Recommendation until it is rescinded
regardless of individual views of the history.

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 
mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com

  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-webarch-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webarch-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dan Connolly
> Sent: October 22, 2004 5:03 PM
> To: Steven Pemberton
> Cc: Stuart Williams; public-webarch-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: HTML WG last call comment on
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-
> webarch-20040816/
> 
> On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 14:29, Steven Pemberton wrote:
> > There is a big difference. We are not talking about dissent being
> > overruled, which even the current process allows, we are talking
about
> > dissent not being reported, which is not allowed.
> >
> > The disposition of comments for XLink lied: it claimed that the last
> call
> > comments from the HTML WG had been replied to, which they hadn't
(also
> not
> > allowed by process). So the director was misled.
> 
> I don't believe so. The Director was aware of all of this, as I
recall.
> 
> > Worse yet, the transition request for XLink occurred *after* the
> decision
> > had already been made, and was not sent until Friday evening; the
> > announcement that it had become a Rec was made the following Monday
> > morning, thus allowing no opportunity for anyone to say "wait a
minute!".
> >
> > Therefore XLink is not every bit as much a W3C Recommendation as
HTML is.
> > It fraudulently became a recommendation.
> 
> There was a process for appeal of a Director's Decision; more
> recently, there is a process for rescinding recommendations.
> Anyone who believes XLink is not or should not be a W3C Recommendation
> should follow that process, I suppose.
> 
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 22:34:06 UTC