- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:25:21 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: w3c-css-wg <w3c-css-wg@w3.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 6:05 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > [ To the member list since it's administrivia, but cc:ed to a public > list since it may as well be public. ] > > Current CSSWG drafts have boilerplate in the "Status of this > document" section that says: > >> GitHub Issues are preferred for discussion of this specification. >> When filing an issue, please put the text “css-animations” in the >> title, preferably like this: “[css-animations] …summary of >> comment…”. All issues and comments are archived, and there is also >> a historical archive. > > However, fxtf drafts and houdini drafts still have the old text: > >> The (archived) public mailing list public-fx@w3.org (see >> instructions) is preferred for discussion of this specification. >> When sending e-mail, please put the text “motion” in the subject, >> preferably like this: “[motion] …summary of comment…” > or: >> The (archived) public mailing list public-houdini@w3.org (see >> instructions) is preferred for discussion of this specification. >> When sending e-mail, please put the text “css-paint-api” in the >> subject, preferably like this: “[css-paint-api] …summary of >> comment…” > > I *think* we should fix these to be similar to the CSSWG ones, > although I'm not 100% sure. Is that the case? Yup, they should be. Fixed. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2016 21:26:10 UTC