- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 16:38:25 +0000
- To: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
- Cc: "Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com" <paul.cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
Hi Fred, On Wednesday, 6 February 2013 at 14:07, Fred Andrews wrote: > Perhaps the scope need not be well defined and this should not block FPWD, but I am not in a position to make this judgement. Can this be interpreted as you removing your initial objection? We reserve the right of any individual to object to the publication; and we want to be sure that you are ok with proceeding. > If it were my proposal I would revise it to clarify any confusion and re-submit it because the same issues will just come up again when a wider and larger audience reviews it. Yes, the specs are far from done - we don't claim otherwise. Please help us fix it (or any of the specs). But please do this in the right forum (i.e., not on the Admin list of the HTLMWG:)). We are happy to discuss any issues you have with any of the specs on either the public-html mailing list, the RICG mailing list, or directly as bugs on github. You can file bugs on either the Use Cases or the <picture> element spec here: https://github.com/responsiveimagescg We welcome all feedback and would appreciate your help fixing any issues you've found! -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 16:38:55 UTC