W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2010

RE: ACTION-166 - Recheck status of issues 10 and 73

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 19:45:14 +0000
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <267F18971244A34BA58D684E5EAA4E6F14E4068A@TK5EX14MBXC137.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> What I remember is that they *were* on the issue-status page
> at the time. 

So Issues 10 and 73 were removed in Revision 1.22:
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/status/issue-status.html?rev=1.22&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup 

I plan to report that ACTION-166 can be closed at this week's WG meeting.

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329


-----Original Message-----
From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 1:31 PM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: Paul Cotton; Sam Ruby; www-archive
Subject: Re: ACTION-166 - Recheck status of issues 10 and 73


On Jan 5, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:

> What I remember is that they *were* on the issue-status page
> at the time. Unfortunately, the issue-status page does not
> have any record of history that I can see.
>
> Please date the issue-status page; is it under CVS or other
> version management, or could that be arranged.

It's in CVS. You can see the revision history here: <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/status/issue-status.html 
 >. I could make the status page itself link to its own revision  
history if that would be helpful.

>
> On ISSUE-73:
> I think the distinction between "CLOSED because issue was
> resolved amicably" and "CLOSED because there was no change
> proposal by the deadline" is not moot. Issues that are
> resolved can be dropped forever, but issues that were closed
> even when there was substantial believe that there was
> a rationale for making a change (a problem) but just a lack
> of concrete proposals in time (a timely solution) should
> remain as questions for future versions of HTML, or even
> open for proposals from external reviewers who are not
> currently working group members (have not been members
> or have left for various reasons).
>
> In the case of ISSUE-73 I think the resolution is
> "CLOSED AS RESOLVED" vs. "CLOSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE".

Per our policy, issues that are resolved by mutual agreement (as with  
73) are closed without prejudice because there is no formal Working  
Group decision. Thus someone else re-raising the issue is not  
precluded. In general our approach has been to resort to a Working  
Group decision only when absolutely necessary, and otherwise allow  
matters to be settled informally. Perhaps Sam can chime in with his  
thoughts.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 20:07:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:45 UTC