On Sat, 21 May 2005, Dean Jackson wrote: > > > > Third, the Working Group failed to address my concern that the methods > > are too underspecified to name them properly, substantive review > > comments like e.g. > > > > http://www.w3.org/mid/4250f647.197089906@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de > > http://www.w3.org/mid/4322a5d6.137820203@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de > > > > have been ignored by the Working Group. > > Ouch! That's the second time in a few days someone has claimed we > "ignore" issues. In this case, we have not yet responded, but that is > not because we're ignoring it. Why is it then? Note that the SVG group published a last call draft _after_ those two e-mails were sent, without any indication that there were still known open issues. Why would you release a "last call" drafts without having dealt with all open issues, if you weren't ignoring them? Is there somewhere we can see a list of open issues that you have not yet responded to but that you are not going to ignore? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'Received on Sunday, 22 May 2005 00:23:49 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:06 UTC