Re: SVG12: getPresentation* naming

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.
> > 
> >
> >
> > 
> > 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       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Sunday, 22 May 2005 00:23:49 UTC