- From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:34:02 +0200
- To: "Kang-Hao \(Kenny\) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
| On the other hand, I don't know if the WG or W3C allows this, but a way | to move this forward without disturbing the editor seems to be to ask | Brian and folks to fork the spec into a tutorial-like Web developer | version, where the terminology can be tweaked to make sure the least | people are "confused". I think it will just add to the confusion. Let's keep one specification, one name for a single feature. If the spec editor dislike a proposal so much it don't want to maintain the spec if the change is done, we've got a problem we need to address another way than to fork a specification. I'm admirative of Tab's work and I seriously don't think he would refuse a change if it was accepted by the majority as a better idea. | Indeed, this is totally orthogonal. A problem I have with this thread is | that I can't tell if some feedback is normative or just | informative/editorial. Initial intent of this thread was to be editorial (unlike the 'Putting it all toegether' thread that was a proposal, just like 'Using $foo' one). However, the [css-variables] threads are so mangled toegether that I would not assume that follow-up messages (even from myself) preserved the intent.
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 19:34:32 UTC