- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:01:13 +0200
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- CC: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, www-font@w3.org
On Wednesday, February 9, 2011, 5:43:58 PM, Chris wrote: CL> On Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 4:16:26 PM, Bert wrote: BB>> 10) Section 8: I didn't check that the summary is indeed compatible BB>> with the earlier sections, but it is clear that it contains some BB>> things that were already said earlier. I get uncomfortable when a BB>> spec repeats things in a normative section. There is almost certainly BB>> a contradiction somewhere. And if not now then in the next version of BB>> the draft. Shouldn't this section be labeled as informative instead? CL> Other commentors have also noted the desirability of labelling CL> this as informative, the risk of getting out of sync with the CL> main spec, and queried the utility of this section in general. CL> The WG has not yet made a decision on how best to proceed, but is discussing it. We now agree fully with your comment. The WG has resolved to remove the section, and this edit has been done. Please let us know if this change satisfies your comment. -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2011 13:01:23 UTC