3 ms·
The technically substantive stuff is all in existing spec issues. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0152.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/
by bzbarsky 13y ago
The technically substantive stuff is all in existing spec issues. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0152.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0152.h... has some links if you care.
- jontro 13y agoWhich is replied to here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0158.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0158.h... Personally the only thing that I think was done incorrectly here was the wording of the initial e-mail. The web needs to move forward
- rch 13y agoAgreed - there was even a terminology explanation and apology message in there too. The first couple of messages from the original post on seem a little hyperbolic, but the fire sort of put itself out in short order.
- bzbarsky 13y agoThere are some fundamental disagreements here about whether certain cases are "edge cases", if you keep reading the threads.
- rch 13y agoThanks - I did continue to read and looked into the spec bugs. I guess I didn't consider Boris, Dimitri, or Tab as being all that outspoken about the so called 'freeze' - one acknowledged the poor word choice, but that's about it.