James M Snell wrote:
Ok, so given that I think this is the fifth or sixth note in which
you've said exactly the same thing, I think your position has been well
established.  What would be excellent is if you'd give others the
opportunity to weigh in on it before trying so hard to filibuster it.

Huh? I'm not sure what you mean--you send way more messages than I do. I'm merely pointing out facts.

I think the following entry from the WHAT-WG blog might be of use here.

http://blog.whatwg.org/proposing-features

Here are some key things that any proposal should include:

* What is the problem you are trying to solve
* What is the feature you are suggesting to help solve it?
* What is the processing model for that feature, including error handling? This should be very clear, including things such as event timing if the feature involves events, how to create graphs representing the data in the case of semantic proposals, etc
* Why do you think browsers would implement this feature
* Why do you think authors would use this feature?

- Rob

Reply via email to