- From: <thomas.deweese@kodak.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 10:32:08 -0500
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org, www-svg-request@w3.org
Hi Chris,
> On Thursday, December 8, 2005, 1:00:37 PM, thomas wrote:
>
> tdkc> Can you please update your summary of SVGT12-164 (Comments on
> tdkc> textArea vs flowText) to reflect my response at:
>
> tdkc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2005Nov/0162.html
chris@w3.org wrote on 12/08/2005 05:33:44 PM:
> Yes, we will. Sorry that one was missed.
It is unfortunate that the SVG-WG does not actively acknowledge
when an issue/response is 'officially' received/logged by the WG.
As it is a lack of response may mean it was missed or it may mean
that the WG is pondering the issue. In this case allowing the WG
to vote on going to LC, likely with most (including apparently the
chair) being unaware of an outstanding 'red flag'...
> [...] We will change your resolution to a "disagree".
Thank you.
> [...] Note that we said at the time in our response that your issue was
> carried forward to Full; so we were expecting to produce a response to
> them in the context of the Full spec.
Yes, this is why I made sure the first sentence of my response made
it clear that I was not satisfied with this resolution.
Received on Friday, 9 December 2005 18:23:36 UTC