W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2013

Re: [css-variables] Last call comments

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:14:58 +0100
Message-ID: <5124B032.6040206@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 20/02/13 11:56, François REMY wrote:

>> But you restarted a thread with long messages and gave me multiple
>> answers instead of one. Again, I need ONE yes or no response: despite
>> your comments and concerns, can you live with spec as is?
>
> I'm not going to answer this, because you won't like the answer.
>
> My answer is simple: All I would like is to get this discussed seriously in the group, not to impose my opinion; therefore I don't plan to 'object' or to make things any harder for you. Consider my feedback just like it is: a feedback. I believe no individual should ever have the possibility to use any kind of veto and, to be consistent with that, I just don't want to make use of one myself.
>
> Is that a sufficient answer to your question?

No it is not. Two editors of the spec including a co-chair studied
carefully your proposals and decided to reject them because they
clearly do not match the expectations and possibilities of the WG right
now. WG members read this mailing-list, it's the only one where we
deal with technical matters. None has expressed support in favor of
your proposal at this time. We will not spend precious conf call time
on your proposal unless there is at least minimal support shown by
the membership. That is _my_ responsability and the minimal conditions
to spend conf call or ftf time on your proposal are _not_ met, sorry.
We did consider your feedback just like any other; we read, studied and
replied.

I am not here to "like (your) answer" or not. I need an answer
period. Do you maintain your objection in order to block the document
or can you live with it as is? Question is clear, and it calls for a
clear answer, thanks.

</Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 11:15:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:06 GMT