[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 2 January 2007
> -----Original Message----- > From: Gershon L Joseph [mailto:gershon@tech-tav.com] > Sent: Monday, 2007 January 08 04:17 > To: Grosso, Paul > Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [dita] DITA Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: > 2 January 2007 > > > Grosso, Paul wrote: > > With due respect to (and appreciation for) Gershon's > > minute taking, there are several points that I believe > > may need correcting in last meeting's minutes. > > Nice to know someone reads the minutes :) And I know how hard it is to take minutes (I do it for several W3C groups), and I do really appreciate the fact that you do it almost every week. > >> Michael moves to deprecate otherprops in favor > >> of adding new attributes. > > > > That was not my understanding. > > > > I understood that we were just deprecating the grouped > > value syntax in otherprops. I did not understand us to > > be deprecating the otherprops attribute completely. > > > > I request that we clarify this decision and correct the > > minutes as appropriate. > > From Michael's email to the list, I thought the same as > Paul. However, > during the actual meeting, I understood we were discussing > removing the > otherprops attribute. It may well be my misunderstanding. Please can > someone clarify so I can correct the minutes if required. Michael, Don, perhaps one of you can clarify. > >> > >> Discussion on whether implementations must support > >> deprecated elements. Consensus that they do not > >> have to support deprecated elements. > > > > I don't remember an official vote/decision on this--did I > > miss something here? > > > > I thought we just had a non-normative discussion about what > > implementations--in particular, the toolkit--should do about > > the deprecated grouped value syntax for otherprops. > > > > Besides, it makes no sense to have any actual vote/decision > > on this unless we plan to put something normative into the > > spec about support for deprecated things, and I don't remember > > seeing any suggested wording for such. > > > > Assuming my memory of the status of this discussion is correct, > > I request that the minutes be corrected to reflect this. > > I wrote "consensus", not "DECISION". > When there is a vote, I write "DECISION:" followed by a > description of > the actual formal decision taken by the TC. The "DECISION" is > preceded > by who moved, and whether there were any objections. > > OTOH "consensus" is an informal agreement, not a formal TC decision. > > If you prefer that I use other terms, please send me the terms you'd > like me to use with a description of when to use each one. OK, perhaps I am just suffering from terminology confusion here. In the W3C, we make most of our decisions by consensus, so when we write "consensus" in W3C minutes, it is a group decision. If the group has a discussion and tends to come to agreement on something that isn't an official decision, I tend to use the phrasing "the WG [or TC] AGREED that...." I'm not sure what the official OASIS meaning of "consensus" is, but that's not important to me now. I'm happy to take your meaning of consensus--now that I understand it--as long as we agree that no change to the spec came out of this discussion. paul
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]