W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2010

RE: [css3-background] vastly different takes on "blur"

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:52:28 +0000
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FA122FEC823D524CB516E4E0374D9DCF0158A876@TK5EX14MBXC132.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

Group A: The spec is fine.
Group B: Change the spec to half/double the meaning of one of the fields of a property.

A isn't conceding to B.
B isn't conceding to A.

> From: Simon Fraser [mailto:smfr@me.com]
> Now can we just move on?

It doesn't sound like there's closure, much less consensus, to me so that seems premature.

- Brian

Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 20:53:04 UTC

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Simon Fraser: "Re: [css3-background] vastly different takes on "blur""
Previous message: Simon Fraser: "Re: [css3-background] vastly different takes on "blur""
In reply to: Simon Fraser: "Re: [css3-background] vastly different takes on "blur""
Next in thread: fantasai: "Re: [css3-background] vastly different takes on "blur""
Reply: fantasai: "Re: [css3-background] vastly different takes on "blur""

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:47 UTC