- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:48:43 +0200
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: public-coremob@w3.org
On Apr 11, 2012, at 19:13 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > It shouldn't be. But it is mostly too high-level to be a useful way of understanding what was chosen. There should be some more operational information like "this is for making Angry Birds work" or "these things were agreed upon by the group" or "this is the one without the gannet" or whatever process was used, as well as the high-falutin' principles by which we are all guided... I agree that it can be better rooted — but more specific wording changes would help! >> I haven't had time to update the references DB with all the missing >> references as well as to update the out of date links that it has. >> >> If you feel like getting your hands dirty > > For the moment I'll keep my hands clean ;) Heh :) > Oh, no I won't, but I'd rather comment in this thread for the editors to follow up on outcomes of discussions - or is your preferred mode to fight with forks? I actually do much prefer fighting with forks since GitHub actually makes this easy (and safe). But if you don't feel like doing so I don't want to impose it. Detailed change suggestions in email are welcome as well! -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 13:49:12 UTC