- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:03:41 +0100
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, steve@w3.org, dino@w3.org, <dbaron@dbaron.org>, <ian@hixie.ch>, <mjs@apple.com>, <w3c-html-cg@w3.org>, <timbl@w3.org>, <www-archive@w3.org>
On Thursday, November 23, 2006, 3:20:16 PM, Charles wrote: CM> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:58:29 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile CM> <chaals@opera.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:27:16 +0100, T.V Raman <raman@google.com> wrote: >> >>> I concurr with Steve, and strongly disagree with the later >>> suggestion on this thread that two parallel versions of the >>> charter be maintained with a pointer being passed around to the >>> alternative --- I for one would not feel comfortable voting on >>> either version of any of the charters if that were the case. >> >> I agree with Raman that having made the proposals they should stand. I >> am disappointed that the feedback that various people including myself >> raised seemed to have been ignored in the proposal, but W3C is like >> that. I will make the same suggestions in my AC review, as significant >> change requests. CM> Hmm. I don't know which charter drafts I was reading. Some of the most CM> significant changes I requested most strongly were in fact made in the CM> proposal. I thought so, and was surprised when you mentioned they were 'ignored as usual'. Glad that has been cleared up. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Sunday, 26 November 2006 07:24:20 UTC