- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:28:16 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Dec 7, 2011, at 11:06 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> That was the one I thought had some promise, but still needed a little work. So apparently, shortly after that, you came up with a grammar that was different, and presented it to the WG as something the four of us had agreed to that best addressed the comments of the survey. No wonder I am confused. The WG voted on something I wasn't even aware of, and which had not been adaquately discussed beforehand. > > Do you hate the current grammar? I like the one we had most recently discussed better. It just needed a little tweaking. > Do you see any mistakes or killer > problems with it? I'll need time to look at it. Slipping it in under the radar during a holiday week under the guise of something we had talked about, didn't afford me the time to give it much attention. I do think it is natural and clear to use 'circle to <extent>'. > It looks like it addresses your concerns, so what > is the problem? It doesn't seem useful to be talking about the merits > of a grammar that you don't like and which doesn't exist in any > published draft. The fact that you stuck something we hadn't discussed into an ED doesn't make it particularly more special than the last thing we had started to discuss. I do like fantasai's proposal that we had begun discussing, but with changes.
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 19:28:50 UTC