- From: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:30:44 +1100
- To: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>, www-style@w3.org
Hmm, it's a strange situation we're in with CSS 2.1 that means originators are being asked whether they accept rejecting an issue without a substantive response with rationale for the decision. If the question is whether I'm satisfied that the current text is free of issues of technical soundness & implementability, then of course no: I continue to believe that the appendix contains contradictions, which is a technical soundness issue, and one that means that the appendix cannot be implemented as currently written (and it takes some time to realize that one must implement something other than what's currently written). However, in practical terms, if the spec is to be published despite having significant unresolved issues, then I don't think this issue is particularly worthwhile to address now: I think it would take a while to work out the right replacement, and I think there are more important problems with zindex.html. pjrm.
Received on Friday, 18 March 2011 05:31:16 UTC