Re: Revert request r7023

Hi Sam,
I personally have put aside other work to get the specs I edit ready on
time for publication, only to be told again, at the last minute the urgency
was a mirage.
The  process appears somewhat farcical as nobody has even hinted that they
will produce a change proposal for Issue 201,  The likely person to produce
a proposal (Hixie) does not appear to be interested in partcipating in the
process, yet heartbeat publication has been deferred a second time when it
is already way over due.

Why haven't the chairs made a public call to hixie and co to ask them if
there is any intention to produce a proposal? Surely a yes/no answer cannot
be that hard to elicit? If there is no intention the working group could
move on.

regards
Stevef

On 20 March 2012 02:40, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On 03/16/2012 05:55 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On 03/16/2012 05:43 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/16/2012 05:22 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 21:46:40 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr.
>>>>> <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the request of the chairs, I'd like to reiterate my opposal to
>>>>>> reverting this. Same reasons as before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To make it more explicit, I also object to reverting this per prior
>>>>> given arguments.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I encourage all those who might oppose this revert request to respond
>>>> to the
>>>> existing call for proposals on ISSUE-201:
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-html/2012Feb/**0267.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0267.html>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not ready to respond to that issue. I'd wait until Hixie is done
>>> with his edits, as I agree with what he's doing on this front (I
>>> helped somewhat in designing them).
>>>
>>
>> If this feature is not ready for HTML5, there always is HTML.next.
>>
>
> After conferring with my co-chairs, if no Change Proposal is produced in
> response to issue 201, we will proceed to a Call for Consensus on the
> Change Proposal that we do have.  As a part of that Call for Consensus.
>  Should that Call for Consensus pass, we will request that r7023 be
> reverted.
>
>  ~TJ
>>>
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
>


-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html