- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 09:11:53 -0500
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 11/7/14 9:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote: >> Do you want`Mozilla Foundation` like Tantek? (If not, please let me know >> what you do want.) > I would prefer just Mozilla. It's not a legal matter, after all. Please give me @X and @Y in: <a href=@X>@Y</a>. (Doing so offlist is fine ;-)). >> Yes, I agree that for a gutted spec including mail list info isn't >> especially useful, although it doesn't seem like including that info is >> especially harmful. Anyhow, I believe TR PubRules require a comment list. >> Yves, Cindy, PHL - is a comment mail list required in the SotD? Ooops. I did mean "... is NOT especially harmful". >> >>> or bug tracker. >> Are you still using Bugzilla? If so, it seems like a link to it should be >> included. > Why would I want feedback on this Note? The bugzilla component is for the spec. > (It's cool with you that I keep using the WebAppsWG product?) I think we already have a precedence for doing this, so yes, this is fine with me. -Thanks, AB
Received on Friday, 7 November 2014 14:20:39 UTC