On Jan 5, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:
What I remember is that they *were* on the issue-status page at the time. Unfortunately, the issue-status page does not have any record of history that I can see. Please date the issue-status page; is it under CVS or other version management, or could that be arranged.
It's in CVS. You can see the revision history here: <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/status/issue-status.html >. I could make the status page itself link to its own revision history if that would be helpful.
On ISSUE-73: I think the distinction between "CLOSED because issue was resolved amicably" and "CLOSED because there was no change proposal by the deadline" is not moot. Issues that are resolved can be dropped forever, but issues that were closed even when there was substantial believe that there was a rationale for making a change (a problem) but just a lack of concrete proposals in time (a timely solution) should remain as questions for future versions of HTML, or even open for proposals from external reviewers who are not currently working group members (have not been members or have left for various reasons). In the case of ISSUE-73 I think the resolution is "CLOSED AS RESOLVED" vs. "CLOSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE".
Per our policy, issues that are resolved by mutual agreement (as with 73) are closed without prejudice because there is no formal Working Group decision. Thus someone else re-raising the issue is not precluded. In general our approach has been to resort to a Working Group decision only when absolutely necessary, and otherwise allow matters to be settled informally. Perhaps Sam can chime in with his thoughts.
Regards, Maciej
