Sam Ruby wrote:
On 08/25/2010 06:28 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
I'm volunteering to write a change proposal for Issue 117.
In that case, I encourage you to rejoin the working group.
Is this a requirement? I can understand that it is simpler to only have
members propose change proposals--they need to be shepherded through the
decision process. I can withhold my submission for a time to see if
others volunteer.
As is obvious, I am intensely interested in HTML5. Frankly, though, I
don't feel comfortable with the HTML WG. I'm not sure re-joining would
be good for myself, or for the group. I get the impression that I am an
unwelcome disruption.
If this is a requirement for change proposals, I need to think on it.
I also want to ask for an update on my other issues:
The surveys for Issues 96 and 97 ended over three months ago. In fact,
we're heading towards the fourth month. Any idea when a decision on
these will be released?
The change proposals for issues 89 and 92 were provided several months
ago (March and April). Any idea when these will go to survey?
Issue 100 did just complete a survey. Any idea when a decision on this
one may be forthcoming?
We do not have specific dates assigned to these items just yet. In
the specific case of new surveys, I can say that issue-41 is ahead of
issues 89 and 92.
Yes, Issue 41 is much older. I could see it taking precedence over any
other action, including my older survey items.
I asked to re-open Issue 106[1]. As I stated, I believe that the
longdesc issue--including making obsolete an attribute that was valid in
HTML4, without any intervening period of deprecation--is new
information, as is the new interest in this topic. If you do, I will
also write a change proposal for this item, too.
As issue 106 was closed without prejudice, new information is not a
requirement.
That's good to know. I hope you do re-open it, then. Perhaps after Issue
41, or some of the others are resolved.
By the way, the suggestion for an HTMl5 overview document[1] was an
excellent one. I don't know about Issue 116, but the idea is an
excellent one, regardless of what happens with this issue.
- Sam Ruby
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Aug/0034.html
