- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:12:45 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, www-archive@w3.org, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Dan Connolly wrote: > I don't quite understand closing an issue with > an expectation that more work will be done on it > later. I'll be more than happy to assign somebody an action item that is not associated with an issue. Based on prior correspondence, I suspect that any or all of Manu, Julian, or Tantek would be willing to be assigned such an action. The question at hand is whether this issue is a blocker and if so, is anybody planning to active work on the issue. Brief history: 2008-06-26 Issue opened 2009-10-09 Bug opened 2009-10-20 Bug marked WONTFIX 2010-01-20 Call for Proposals > I took a brief look at the proposal... > no change proposal for ISSUE-55, but a new plan for @profile > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0683.html > > I'm not persuaded that it's not cost-effective to just > keep head/@profile in HTML 5. My position remains: > > let's keep metadata profiles (head/@profile) in HTML for use in GRDDL > etc. > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jul/0571.html > > I'm inclined to object to this CfC, but I'll stand by to learn > a little more about the situation first. Are you inclined to write a Change Proposal? I'm quite willing to track actions, and blocking issues that are actively being worked. - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 16:13:18 UTC