- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 01:48:44 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Chris Lilley wrote: > > On Friday, July 21, 2006, 10:20:19 PM, Ian wrote: > > > Most of the disagreements do not make it clear what the argument of > > the commentor is, > > That would be the first link on each comment, which takes you directly > to the unabridged and original archived comment. By that argument, you don't need any of the summaries. My point is that currently the disposition of comments lists the SVGWG's position inline, but not the commentor's. Take, for example, the first issue. It says (repeating information given in some of the links): Resolution: The SVG WG believes the commenter misunderstands transfer-encoding. It doesn't say (again, information given in the links): Argument: The commentor believes the SVG WG never responded to this comment in a coherent manner. I am asking that the dispostion of comment take a neutral stance by listing the positions of both the SVG WG and the commentor on any issue that is marked as unresolved. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 24 July 2006 01:48:58 UTC