- From: by way of Dave Peterson <MFC@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 12:50:43 -0500
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
[This was originally personal to me, Dave Peterson. I'm sending it on to
the comments list to put Mike C's agreement to closing the issue on the
record. The msg is copied in its entirity up through the "<snip/>"
at the end. The "> >" quotes are from Mike; the ">" quotes are from
me; the unquoted material ("OK....") is from Mike.]
> >Yes, precisionDecimal will satisfy the various requirements. But it
> >hasn't actually 'shipped' yet, so the 'bug' cannot be closed, surely?
(It
> >wouldn't be in a commercial/product environment, for sure.)
>
> I guess "closing" is a technical word. For us, it means a solution to
the
> bug has been approved by the WG, placed in the current "status quo"
document,
> and the bug originator has either formally accepted that solution or has
> not responded to a request that he or she indicate whether or not the
> solution is acceptable--i.e., no more work on that particular bug is
needed.
> (The status quo document is the updated-every-week-or-so version of the
> original base plus all WG-approved modifications.)
>
> It's understood that bugs are not really fixed as far as the real world
> is concerned until the status quo document goes through the "last call
> working draft (where we are now), candidate recommendation (published
> to gain implementation experience), proposed recommendation (ready to
> be approved by the W3C Advisory Committee), recommendation (so aproved)"
> track. Closure in our bug reporting system simply means that we have
> finished with the bug and changed the status quo as necessary.
OK. By all means go ahead and close it in that case.
<snip material="personal"/>
Mike
Received on Friday, 8 December 2006 17:50:55 UTC