W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > March 2008

Re: [css3-namespace] Last call comments from XHTML2 WG

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:11:15 -0700
Message-ID: <47ED18A3.6010507@inkedblade.net>
To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
CC: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org>, XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org

John Boyer wrote:
> 
> I've hit reply to the latest in the thread, but this message is in 
> further response to Bjoern and the thread in general.
> 
> I would like to point out that the W3C process document specifically 
> states that last call commenters are not required to develop full 
> spec-ready solutions to the problems they identify.  It is the 
> responsibility of the CSS working group to come up with a proposed 
> solution and then ask the commenter if they are satisfied.

Understood.

> I have not yet seen a satisfactory explanation in this email thread for 
> why the CSS group is choosing to violate the axiom that Steven has 
> described clearly below (and just as clearly in his last call comment).

I've tried to explain our rationale. I think the axiom Steven believes
is an axiom of CSS is subtly different from (and stricter than) the axiom
that we use in designing CSS. We take backwards and forwards compatibility
very seriously in CSS, and those are both principles that we apply in
designing new features. But that doesn't always mean every level must
either interpret the same code exactly the same or ignore everything
associated with it.

> What I have seen on this thread is a last call comment being rejected 
> without the rejection even being approved by the CSS working group (or 

The last call comment is being rejected. You have raised a formal objection
to that rejection, and Anne and I will take that back to the working group
for discussion. I don't see any good reason to consult the WG on every
comment we choose to reject if the commenter later agrees with our rationale.
Which has happened. In this case it hasn't, and you will get a response
from the full CSSWG.

~fantasai
Received on Friday, 28 March 2008 17:11:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:47 UTC