- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 01:51:01 +0200
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: "Gérard Talbot" <www-style@gtalbot.org>, W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
* L. David Baron wrote: >In hindsight, I think we should reconsider this resolution once >there's actual proposed text for the errata item. And in the >future, I think that given CSS 2.1's level of stability, we >shouldn't consider proposed errata without an actual proposal for >what text is being changed. The Working Group should "consider" such issues, but if there is no "patch", then it should only action someone to make one, and decide about such a patch when it is available. It's quite normal that some- one identifies a problem, but does not care at all how it should be resolved, or how the modified requirements should be phrased, or in fact they might not be able to come up with text that the group will approve, and filling such gaps is why we have the Working Group; but it would have to "consider" such issues to do that. (I suppose David would largely agree with that, but the above might be read by a casual reader that they need to send in patches if they don't want their issue to be ignored by the Working Group, and that would be a bad thing.) -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 23:51:26 UTC