Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Simplified scope statement #49

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Simplified scope statement #49

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

AramZS
Copy link
Contributor

@AramZS AramZS commented Dec 5, 2022

Intended to address:
Objection stated that intended to be implemented in browsers or similar user agents was overly complex and proposed simplification here.

See #44 to help with understanding this issue.

Intended to address: 
Objection stated that `intended to be implemented in browsers or similar user agents` was overly complex and proposed simplification here.
@AramZS AramZS added the comment-response We are attempting to realize issues raised by others. These PRs/Issues do not represent the chairs. label Dec 5, 2022
@AramZS AramZS mentioned this pull request Dec 5, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@martinthomson martinthomson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Line 171/172 has this already, so a good change.

Copy link
Contributor

@hober hober left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This change runs counter to the charter objection I filed, which read in part:

The scope is overly broad. Specifically: the proposed charter does not limit the scope of the WG to implementations within browsers or browser-like user agents that access the World Wide Web using web technologies.

@benjaminsavage
Copy link
Contributor

@hober - would you be willing to propose an update to the text to address your concerns?

@hober
Copy link
Contributor

hober commented Feb 7, 2023

@hober - would you be willing to propose an update to the text to address your concerns?

PR #50 looks pretty good offhand, though I dunno if there's text outside of that diff that might also need to be tweaked.

@AramZS
Copy link
Contributor Author

AramZS commented Mar 20, 2023

If we reach consensus on #56 this will be closing. Accordingly, I am marking this as being under a consensus call

@AramZS AramZS added the call-for-consensus Indicates a PR or Issue is at a state where we are calling for participents to reach consensus label Mar 20, 2023
@AramZS AramZS closed this in #56 Mar 21, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
call-for-consensus Indicates a PR or Issue is at a state where we are calling for participents to reach consensus comment-response We are attempting to realize issues raised by others. These PRs/Issues do not represent the chairs.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants