W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > August 2008

Re: @headers issue resolved - allowing a td to be referenced by a header to be in the HTMl5 spec.

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:51:39 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80808290451g7ab62464sf020b981ba0c1ac8@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "Chris Wilson" <chris.wilson@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org

I await the chairs decision

2008/8/29 Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:26:16 +0200, Steven Faulkner
> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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?
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter#decisions states:
>  As explained in the Process Document (section 3.3), this group will
>  seek to make decisions when there is consensus. We expect that
>  typically, an editor makes an initial proposal, which is refined in
>  discussion with Working Group members and other reviewers, and
>  consensus emerges with little formal decision-making.
> it then continues with stating what should happen in case consensus does not
> arise:
>  However, if a decision is necessary for timely progress, but after
>  due consideration of different opinions, consensus is not achieved,
>  the Chair should put a question (allowing for remote, asynchronous
>  participation using, for example, email and/or web-based survey
>  techniques) and record a decision and any objections, and consider
>  the matter resolved, at least until new information becomes
>  available.
>> 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?
> Because that's how our charter works.
>> it can then be challenged if there is a groundswell of
>> opposition.
> It can also be challenged if it's not in the specification. (Which is what
> is happening, by raising issues, sending e-mail, et cetera.)
>> 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).
> There's no exception clause for minor changes as far as I can tell.
> --
> 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 -
Received on Friday, 29 August 2008 11:52:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:32 UTC