W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2012

Re: [css3-values] verification of disposition of comments

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:22:32 -0400
Message-ID: <50062BF8.4050004@inkedblade.net>
To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
CC: "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
On 07/17/2012 01:10 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote:
>
> In general, if I strongly disagree with something, I'll just followup in
> the list (say, spaces around '+' and '-'), so yes, I think the editors
> handled my comments adequately.

Thanks. I know you've mentioned this before, but for LC we need to put
a recorded response, to make sure things don't fall through the cracks.

> Just some extra input here:
>
>>    - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Apr/0629.html
>
> This is followed up in [1]. Apparently I don't think it's too important
> so I took it off the list. I am not going to debate more about editorial
> issues.

Ok

>>    - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jul/0381.html
>
> I don't have time to think more about this one but for the purpose of
> the process, I don't have a problem with your response.

Ok

> Oh, one nitty thing, may I ask the editors to use "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu"
> or "Kang-Hao Lu" as my name on the DoCs. I just never go by "Kenny Lu".
> "Kenny" is just my nick and "Lu" is part of my formal name so it pretty
> weird to see this combination (to me). Also, there are too many "Kenny
> Lu" out there.
>
> I told Tab about this before[2] but that wasn't carried out (perhaps it
> was reverted?).

No clue what happened. It's all checked in now (retroactively for css3-images
as well):
   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-flexbox/issues-lc-2012
   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-values/issues-lc-2012
   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/issues-lc-2012

> Thanks for all the hard working:)

Thanks for the detailed reviews! Even the editorial comments: they're
very frustrating to deal with as an editor, because it's so much fiddly
word-smithing stuff, but they make the spec better in the end. :)

Though in the future... if you can separate out substantive issues
from the editorial ones into separate threads, it would help us with
tracking. ^^ (If the spec's unclear, and multiple reasonable
interpretations of the spec's intent are possible, it's probably a
substantive issue.)

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 03:30:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:44:08 UTC