- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 16:53:00 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 06.04.2010 23:30, Shelley Powers wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >>> >>> On 04/06/2010 05:10 PM, Shelley Powers wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm not going to formally object to this interesting segue in the >>>> procedure, but I believe that anyone that writes one counter to all is >>>> doing so with the assumption that the co-chairs and group have already >>>> made a decision regardless of the strengths of the argument. This >>>> assumption is more likely trigger me to file a Formal Objection if my >>>> changes are rejected. >>> >>> Issues 1 and 2 were decided together. >>> >> >> Same counter-proposal? There's been so many lately, I can't remember >> what was what. >> ... > > Issue #1 was about the protocol used for a/@ping. Issue #2 was about UI > requirements. > > Roy wrote a change proposal addressing both by removing the feature > completely. > > Best regards, Julian > Ah. Not quite the same as my situation, then. I guess if folks want to toss a one-size-fits-all counter back, will probably make my job of editing my change proposals based on feedback a whole lot easier. Thanks Julian Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 21:53:34 UTC