- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:17:17 +0000
- To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Simon Fraser: > This thread has gone on long enough. > > We're at the point where we obviously have a bunch of competing > suggestions, and are not going to reach consensus. It's at this point > that you have to stop and ask yourself (especially if you are in a > minority) "can I live with a spec which says X". > > I suggest that Tab revert his edit to the spec that changed the meaning > of the keywords for linear-gradient (since it wasn't resolved by the > WG), and we all step back and consider whether the spec is workable in > that form. There are several edits that haven't been resolved by the WG that are in the current ED. I suggest the edit stays and then "we all step back". With reversion, the issue that I raised remains unaddressed. With the edit, the issue is resolved. Given there are unhappy parties either way, if it's a split committee is it not better to have the inconsistency resolved rather than "lived with"?
Received on Friday, 10 June 2011 16:17:47 UTC