(chair hat still off) 25.09.2014, 12:36, "Anne van Kesteren" <ann...@annevk.nl>: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM, <cha...@yandex-team.ru> wrote: >> In the absence of any clear rationale, "It might change somehow" is >> effectively "FUD", much as "someone might have IPR" is. So while you are >> technically correct that a technology and its specification can change, that >> is effectively irrelevant. > > Before you start calling FUD,
By responding without an answer to the question of whether your comments are addressed, you perpetuate uncertainty and doubt. The most useful answer would have been one of "yes" or "no" (perhaps with further explanation or a pointer, some of which you have provided below). That said, my point was in relation to Marcos' assertion that we should not produce the particular versions of documents required by the process unless they are synchronised with what is in Github. > you might want to read up on my comment > and the replies I got before you start spreading some of your own. It > effectively comes down to the fact that the specification describes > something, but Chrome implements it in another way per how I suggested > it should work (using "animation frame tasks"). (chair hat on): This *suggests* that you are not satisfied with the current resolution of your comments. It would be helpful if you said so (or said that you are satisfied if that is the case). Your reply to the question was unhelpful, dealing with a tangential question that is out of the scope of this group, as per http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WorkMode#Off-Topic_Discussion_Policy cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
