- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 02:22:34 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Philippe Le Hegaret (plh@w3.org)" <plh@w3.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Oct 8, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Oct 2012, Paul Cotton wrote: > >>> > >>> Do you wish to maintain this Formal Objection? > >> > >> Could you please respond to my public-html@w3.org about this Formal > >> Objection? > >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0225.html > > > > The points raised in the FO still apply, but I'll let the W3C decide > > how to deal with it for the HTMLWG deliverable. The problem either is > > or will be fixed in the WHATWG version of the spec regardless. > > For the sake of clarity: does that mean you still wish to pursue your > Formal Objection or that you wish to withdraw it? i.e. do you want > processing of it via the Formal Objection process to be part of how "the > W3C decide[s] how to deal with it", or would you rather we dealt with it > otherwise? > > (I ask because your statement was interpreted in opposite ways by > different people.) I wish to not be involved in threads regarding the W3C process any more. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 02:22:57 UTC