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

Re: [css-shapes] Re: Agenda conf call 02-oct-2013

From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 08:18:55 -0700
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE718632.D76D%galineau@adobe.com>

On 10/2/13 8:00 AM, "Alan Stearns" <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:

>On 10/2/13 4:16 AM, "Håkon Wium Lie" <howcome@opera.com> wrote:
>>Daniel Glazman wrote:
>> > 3. Shapes LC
>> > ------------
>> > publish ?
>>As a WD, fine. As Last Call, no. I've expressed my views in comments
>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Sep/0321.html

>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Sep/0335.html

>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Sep/0342.html

>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Dec/0482.html

>>The comments have had zero impact, it seems.
>I'm not sure how you're arriving at this conclusion. I've responded to all
>of your comments in detail, and your input has resulted in several changes
>to Shapes level 2. As far as I can tell, we're mainly disagreeing on which
>shape generation mechanisms to work on first. I've described my reasons
>for what is in level 1 and level 2 of shapes several times. Here's another

I would note that Last Call requires all feedback received during the LC
period to be addressed and documented in the Disposition of Comment. So if
one believes their prior feedback was not quite properly addressed, this
is the ideal time to make the editors deal with it to your satisfaction
*and* in a timely manner. The spec won't go further if they fail...

Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 15:19:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:15 UTC