- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:47:25 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Philippe LeHegaret <plh@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Hi Anne, The editor had more than a reasonable amount of time to get to the revert request, he found time to respond to other bugs and publicly respond [1] to the working group decision to make the revert against his wishes. It is a technically trivial task that would have taken a few minutes. It is very difficult under such circumstances to assume the eventuality of any particular action by the editor, the larger question is why should we have to be waiting. [1] http://www.netmagazine.com/news/ian-hickson-responds-over-html5-getting-time-element-back-111552 Sent from my iPhone On 11 Nov 2011, at 11:36, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:08:16 +0100, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Is anyone really doubting that the editor will get to the change? >> >> Yes i am seriously doubting it, thats why i asked. No changes have occured to the canvas 2d context spec since the revert was made on it, I do not >> think it is a situation that should be repeated with the HTML5 spec and if it does occur I want to see it nipped in the bud before it causes problems. > > I think the problem is doubting the editor will get to the "revert request". Because the moment someone who is not editing HTML5 starts editing the non-canonical CVS version of it, trying to clean up that mess will take hours. It's a lot of make work and as you indicate will just result in the W3C copy not getting updated until the underlying issue is resolved. > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 15:49:23 UTC