On 11/24/2014 10:30 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Jeff Jaffe <j...@w3.org> wrote:
On 11/24/2014 7:59 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Jeff Jaffe <j...@w3.org> wrote:
I don't recall that we were discussing hypotheticals in that meeting.
That's surprising to say the least. We've discussed that exact
scenario several more times afterwards.
Your previous comment and my response related to "that meeting".
That is why I used the word "more".
I agree that we've discussed numerous proposals and as you know W3C has been
trying hard to find one that works for all involved. I don't recall Sam's
specific proposal which I believe has elements which make it more workable.
I know of no such thing. In fact, last time this was discussed W3C
didn't even get back to me.
I apologize if there was a misunderstanding. Here are my understandings.
When I say we discussed numerous proposals I include:
* Discussions you, Philippe, and I had on the Sunday of the Shenzhen
TPAC meeting
* Discussions that Philippe told me he was having with you and Mike
Champion later that meeting.
* Discussions that Robin told me he was having with you and Domenic a
couple of months ago relative to URL.
When you say "the last time this was discussed W3C didn't even get back
to me", I was not in the middle of the conversation so I can't say, but
I apologize on behalf of my colleagues. I assume this was the URL
discussion from a couple of months ago.
As I understand it, there had been some progress but at a point in time
we heard there was an insistence in having a subtitle on the document
"For government officials and patent lawyers only". My impression was
that this was a hard element of disagreement because it was required by
WHATWG but unacceptable to us.
I find it odd that this was never communicated back to you, but as I
said, I apologize for it.
Personally, it is not my style to leave people hanging so I encourage
you to reach out to me if this happens to you again.
I also don't see how Sam's proposal is
different.
I don't know the previous proposal in detail, but at least one element
of difference is that it does not have the subtitle on it. I also think
that the method of having the commits done outside the WG first is a
novel approach; but perhaps that was in the previous proposal which I
did not see.
