- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:42:40 -0400
- To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 08/26/2010 05:10 AM, Steven Faulkner wrote: > OK, have changed the short and long names, have added the sections to > display the issue status. > > Once this shows up in the spec and the incorrect "last call for > comments" status is removed or replaced with something that accurately > reflects the status, then I will have no objection to closing issue 116 Thank you. A note on "once this shows up in the spec": that part is automated. Every time a change to the spec is checked in, the document is published, that process takes a number of minutes, and as a part of that process the issues markers are inserted. The reason why I am mentioning this is that this is not a predictable, timer driven event. It is not like "it happens at 3am every morning". It generally happens when a checkin addressing an unrelated change is made to the spec. Given the rate of change to the spec, this has not been a problem. http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/thread.html I'll watch for the sections that you indicated in issue 31 to be marked, and for resolution of the "last call for comments" marker and then put out a "CfC: Close ISSUE-116 text-alternative by amicable resolution". - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 09:43:13 UTC