Warning, significant snippage ahead...
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
(e.g. the allowance for the /> syntax in text/html...
...
I don't consider this "horse trading" at all.
Excellent.
Fair enough. I've removed 1.5.4.
Excellent.
I've allowed <meta
charset> for the UTF-8 case in XML
Excellent.
My concern is that "The W3C technical report development process is
designed to maximize consensus about the content of a technical report,
to ensure high technical and editorial quality, to promote consistency
among specifications, and to earn endorsement by W3C and the broader
community"; it provides a number of explicit "outs" for FPWD, but
declines to do so for LC.
In the upcoming weeks, I plan to discuss this with my co-chair, W3C
staff, and W3C management to see home much wiggle room there is in the
definition of this term. I should have an answer by the time we meet
next month.
What do you think we need wiggle room or an "out" for? I wouldn't want to
proceed to LC even this year if there were areas where the working group
knew there was something that should change further before going to CR.
I strongly agree with the last sentence.
I believe that Rob has done everybody a great service by identifying the
sections that he feels are not quite ready for standardization by this
working group at this time. Hopefully I can get others to do likewise
by this spring. Then we will have a good idea of what either needs to
be fixed or cut.
If we have [rough|substantial|sufficient] consensus, there is no need
for an "out".
It now occurs to me that if you were willing to provide a similar amount
of input weekly (say, on Monday) on the items that appear on
<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda> with a due date within the
next 11 days (i.e., covering both the immediate call and the next), that
would be most helpful.
That should be possible, yes.
Excellent.
I really can't prioritise editorial stuff over issues with actual
normative requirements, sorry. People are implementing the spec, and
shipping it, and if we don't fix the spec when they mention problems
we might find ourselves forced into things we don't like.
I acknowledge that you are unwilling or unable to do so.
I'm in the unexpected position right now of having no urgent feedback,
having dealt with the pending urgent feedback this weekend. Now would be
an excellent and rare time for us to deal with issues that you think would
help but that I normally would not consider a high priority. Are there any
others beyond the two issues mentioned above that I've now dealt with,
and the summary="" issue, which I will deal with tomorrow?
Summary next, then profile.
- Sam Ruby
