- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:55:59 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 04/07/2011 11:59 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> Operationally, there is little difference between quickly responding -- even >> to reasonable inquiries -- and ongoing discussion. Additionally, I would >> rather not discuss decisions that already are the subject of a Formal >> Objection. > > Note that jgraham's new information and intended action regarding a > new change proposal are both directly relevant to my objection; it was > precisely the discarding of similar information that caused me to > raise the objection in the first place. Thanks. It is my expectation that the chairs will not come to a consensus on James's request[1][2] until midweek next week at the earliest given our other priorities. Just as a heads up, should this issue ultimately get reopened, I will likely follow up with a request that you voluntarily withdraw your formal objection, just like I did for issue-30: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011Mar/0004.html > ~TJ - Sam Ruby [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0153.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0154.html
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 19:56:30 UTC