- From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:26:16 +0100
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Chris Wilson" <chris.wilson@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org
Hi anne, > It may sound odd, but as far as I can tell that's how it works per our > charter. (Though it seems a bit derogatory to say that about Ian, as he > quite clearly explains why changes are made). There is no where in the charter that I can see, where it says the only way to have something added to the spec is at the editors discretion, can you point it out to me if there is? Why then after consideration the chairs decide that something should it not be added to the spec, does it automatically need to go to a vote? it can then be challenged if there is a groundswell of opposition. We are not after all here asking for some loony tune addition with no hope of adoption, we are asking for a very minor change that is proven to work and is well supported and has no or little implementation overhead for browser vendors (please correct me if I am wrong). regards stevef 2008/8/29 Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>: > On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:58:30 +0200, Steven Faulkner > <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I'm not sure what you're referring to but it seems the charter was not >>> followed here >> >> My understanding is that the chairs decide if it is required to go to a >> vote [1] > > It hasn't gone to a vote yet as far as I can tell. So if this was indeed a > decision it would be in violation of the W3C Process. > > >> It would be seem a bit odd that the editor a can make substantive >> changes to the spec at his whim, but the chairs cannot request a >> change after due consideration. > > It may sound odd, but as far as I can tell that's how it works per our > charter. (Though it seems a bit derogatory to say that about Ian, as he > quite clearly explains why changes are made.) > > >> but I am happy to be informed otherwise, if this issue is considered >> substantive enough to be put to a vote, then so be it. >> >> btw >> It is good to see you recognising the HTML WG charter in this case. > > I'm not sure what this snide remark is supposed to mean. > > >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > <http://annevankesteren.nl/> > <http://www.opera.com/> > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Friday, 29 August 2008 11:26:56 UTC