W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > December 2005

Re: Last Call: SVG Tiny 1.2

From: <thomas.deweese@kodak.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 10:32:08 -0500
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org, www-svg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF892B8AEF.8B7C1454-ON852570D2.005519DD-852570D2.00555720@knotes.kodak.com>

Hi Chris,

> On Thursday, December 8, 2005, 1:00:37 PM, thomas wrote:
> 
> tdkc>     Can you please update your summary of  SVGT12-164 (Comments on
> tdkc> textArea vs flowText) to reflect my response at:
> 
> tdkc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2005Nov/0162.html


chris@w3.org wrote on 12/08/2005 05:33:44 PM:

> Yes, we will. Sorry that one was missed.

   It is unfortunate that the SVG-WG does not actively acknowledge
when an issue/response is 'officially' received/logged by the WG.
As it is a lack of response may mean it was missed or it may mean
that the WG is pondering the issue. In this case allowing the WG 
to vote on going to LC, likely with most (including apparently the
chair) being unaware of an outstanding 'red flag'...

> [...] We will change your resolution to a "disagree".

    Thank you.

> [...] Note that we said at the time in our response that your issue was
> carried forward to Full; so we were expecting to produce a response to
> them in the context of the Full spec.

   Yes, this is why I made sure the first sentence of my response made 
it clear that I was not satisfied with this resolution. 
Received on Friday, 9 December 2005 18:23:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:32 GMT