- From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:08:43 -0500
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Cc: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>,Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
At 12:00 PM 1/29/2009 +0100, Håkon Wium Lie wrote: >Also sprach Murray Maloney: > > I think that you are making the point that you have a bad > > experience synchronizing between two separate formatting language > > working groups with different processing models and fiercely > > independent chairs, and that your experience should inform us all. > > Is that it? > >Essentially, yes -- although the chairs were co-operative and the >differences in processing model is irrelevant wrt. naming properties >and values. We have differing recollections about the co-operativeness of the chairs -- perhaps you are suffering from being too close to see. I recall that the processing model differences were a source of division and contention from the start. A little bit of co-operation goes a long way, but co-operation is most effective when it is reciprocated regularly. You should try sometime. > > I don't recall being party to the formatting property name > > discussions in CSS/XSL WGs. I'm sorry for your troubles. Here's > > hoping things work out better in the future. > >It's not my personal peace of mind you should be worried about -- it's >the success of future specifications. W3C's experiment with having two >normative specifications describing the same formatting properties has >not been successful and I've seen no evidence why things would go >better this time. I think that you have made your point. Repetition of your argument does not convince me -- it never has. We do not see eye to eye.
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 15:32:29 UTC