- From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:16:29 +0900
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, 2011-04-16 18:44 +0000: > Actually no, this does not resolve the concern. The document you reference > above is indeed of interest to the TAG too, and we are glad that it is being > published. but it is not the one in question here I'm fairly sure. That is > [1], which is the author view of the main spec. That was the one that Mike > had told us in Lyon he had left out of the then recently published package > due to the work involved in pubrules compliance, and you (Paul) and I agreed > that the TAG's concern would be resolved if it were put onto the rec track. > I think it's clear from your 4 Nov 2010 message, quoted in part in the > thread below, that it's [1] that's in question here. Can you confirm that it > too is going into the Rec. packages? Thank you. It is now being published along with full spec each time we produce a new working draft of that, and will continue to be going forward. The only time the author view was not published along with the spec was the 19 October 2010 round of publications. But after that we did two more publication rounds, and the author view was included in both: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110113/author/ http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110405/author/ -- Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Sunday, 17 April 2011 07:18:18 UTC