- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:30:22 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- cc: www-archive@w3.org
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Nathan wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > When the W3C chairs make a decision to change the W3C copy of the > > spec, that is the W3C chairs increasing the divergence between the > > versions of the specification, not me. Quite obviously divergence > > between the specs cannot be the fault of the group who's spec is not > > being changed. > > Sorry, this has totally confused me, I thought the WHATWG spec was a > living standard and pretty much always changing (hence living standard), > so which one is the spec that is not being changed? Both specs change all the time. My point is that when a _particular_ change is made to only one of the two, then obviously the responsibility for the change is not with the group maintaining the one that didn't get that particular change. > > By definition, every issue that is raised on the spec is something > > I've objected to, since if I didn't object, there would be nothing to > > escalate. > > Does that mean you're the only one who can escalate something? what if > you don't object but somebody else does? can that objection not be > escalated? The process the working group is using is described here: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Someone files a bug asking for a change, and if I reject that change, they can escalate it to an issue. So by definition any escalated issue is on a topic to which I have already objected. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 21:30:45 UTC