W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > October to December 2004

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:02:40 -0500
To: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
Cc: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>, public-webarch-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1098478959.14529.507.camel@dirk>
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 21:01:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:48 UTC