RE: Posting multipart/form-data

I don't think it matters from where the comment comes.

The PR review ends this Thursday.  If someone (even on
the WG) comments that they support the PR only if we
add the missing attribute that we had already decided
to add, I would think there should be no problem adding
that between PR and Rec, especially if there were a test
case with this attribute that 2 implementations passed.

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-xml-
> processing-model-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Liam R E Quin
> Sent: Saturday, 2010 April 10 13:53
> To: Alex Milowski
> Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Posting multipart/form-data
> 
> On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 19:29 +0100, Alex Milowski wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
> wrote:
> > > Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> writes:
> > >
> > >> Am I missing something or did we not do this action:
> > >>
> > >>    http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-xproc-minutes.html#action01
> > >>
> > >> You need that for this request.
> > >
> > > Craptastic. That action fell on the floor.
> >
> > What recourse do we have now?  Can we issue a correction?
> 
> Minor technical corrections can be done to a document in CR or PR;
> once the document is a Rec you have to issue an erratum, and then
> can do a 2nd edition later.
> 
> Since this is the addition of an attribute, and doesn't change
> the meaning of existing pipeline documents without the attribute,
> I'd argue it's probably OK. Especially if there were a comment
> sent from outside the WG about it :)
> 
> Liam
> 
> 
> --
> Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
> Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
> Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org
>

Received on Monday, 12 April 2010 14:25:07 UTC