Re: CfC: Request transition of DOM4 to Proposed Recommendation

I also still object to the use of the term "nuked".  Not enough to vote no,
but I don't understand why it hasn't been changed.  I was pretty sure I
submitted a comment to this effect the last time around too.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:

> Filed at
>  https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28943
>
> Philippe
>
>
>
> On 07/13/2015 11:02 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
>> On 7/13/15 10:27 AM, Paul Cotton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive
>>> responses are encouraged. If there are no objections by Monday 20
>>> July, this resolution will carry.
>>>
>>>
>> I still don't think the use of "nuked" in
>> <http://w3c.github.io/dom/PR-20150723.html#interface-domerror> is
>> optimal.
>>
>> Did someone object to Glenn's alternate proposal (from a year ago
>> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2014JulSep/0020.html>)?
>>
>>
>


-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.

Received on Monday, 13 July 2015 15:19:14 UTC