Re: Official answer to PFWG comments and objection on css3-background

Thanks for indicating that this message is the official CSS WG position.
We had started processing that message anyway some weeks ago, but didn't
feel rushed given that we didn't take it as a formal WG response, and
were having trouble gathering the people with the right knowledge at one
time. However, this comment was already on our agenda for tomorrow, and
in light of this message I've asked the people with background to make a
particular point to be present. We should be able to give a PFWG
consensus reply soon. Michael

Daniel Glazman wrote:
> Michael,
> We discussed the current css3-background hiatus in our last CSS WG
> conference call. The answers fantasai gave to your comments on
> the 24th of feb 2010 [1] and the 27th of oct 2010 [2] are the official
> positions of the Working Group, as minuted here [3]. We never received a
> response from you or your Group related to these edits/answers. See
> here [4] the timeline of PFWG comments and answers from our WG reps.
> We hope that it will be enough to address your objection on the
> specification and that we'll be able to make the document move forward
> along the REC track in the coming days/weeks. Could you please make sure
> this is discussed during your forthcoming WFPG conf call? Thanks!
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]
> Best,
> </Daniel>
> -- 
> W3C CSS Working Group, Co-chair


Michael Cooper
Web Accessibility Specialist
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
E-mail <>
Information Page <>

Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 21:40:18 UTC