W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-bugzilla@w3.org > February 2012

[Bug 16024] should some/all of the prose on transitioning gradients be deferred?

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:58:14 +0000
To: public-css-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1S2oj8-0001uH-NA@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #3 from L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> 2012-02-29 18:58:14 UTC ---
No; that's proposing we fix the rules for interpolating gradients; this is
proposing we remove what's already in the spec.

(In other cases, the discussion on postponing an issue was about a feature
request for something not in the spec; this is different because we need to
remove something that currently is in the spec, so it's not simply postponing
the issue because something needs to be removed.)

Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 18:58:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:36:39 UTC