- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:48:56 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Le 29/02/12 17:46, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit : > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Daniel Glazman > <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: >> Le 28/02/12 22:49, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit : >>> If we do, we should broaden it to all non-W3C references, like RFCs, >>> which we definitely refer to in some places. >> >> FIWI, RFCs are a bit different here: W3C does not have working groups >> on same topics and specs of same names... > > Irrelevant; the concern is with patents, not politics. Don't tell _me_ that. The CSS WG is still a W3C WG, and W3C does have some rules. </Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:49:29 UTC