- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 22:44:12 -0400
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: GΓ©rard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>, www-style@w3.org, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Thursday 2012-05-03 01:51 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * L. David Baron wrote: > >In hindsight, I think we should reconsider this resolution once > >there's actual proposed text for the errata item. And in the > >future, I think that given CSS 2.1's level of stability, we > >shouldn't consider proposed errata without an actual proposal for > >what text is being changed. > > The Working Group should "consider" such issues, but if there is no > "patch", then it should only action someone to make one, and decide > about such a patch when it is available. It's quite normal that some- > one identifies a problem, but does not care at all how it should be > resolved, or how the modified requirements should be phrased, or in > fact they might not be able to come up with text that the group will > approve, and filling such gaps is why we have the Working Group; but > it would have to "consider" such issues to do that. > > (I suppose David would largely agree with that, but the above might > be read by a casual reader that they need to send in patches if they > don't want their issue to be ignored by the Working Group, and that > would be a bad thing.) Agreed. By "consider" I probably should have written "agree to". -David -- π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π π’ Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ π
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 02:46:46 UTC