W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cdf@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Math WG comments on latest CDF documents

From: Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 09:46:50 -0400
To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Cc: member-math@w3.org, public-cdf@w3.org, ron.ausbrooks@mackichan.com
Message-ID: <OF5C02469F.A915BDAB-ON852572B4.004B388A-852572B4.004B88DD@us.ibm.com>

David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> wrote on 03/29/2007 05:28:25 PM:
> 
> Steve
> 
> > To be more specific on how this is being tracked:
> > 
> > Since this was originally marked as a disagree from the first LC and 
then 
> > it was reraised during our second LC, we are not tracking it as 2 
> > disagrees.  Only the one [1] against the first LC for comments.
> 
> As a personal response, I don't think that this is sufficiently clear
> logging of the status. The current situation makes it look as if the
> original comment which was essentially re-raised has now been agreed to
> be non-applicable which certainly is NOT the case. Marking it as 
"disagree"
> would be clearest, or as an absolute minimum marking it as duplicate of
> the earlier comment would be just about acceptable.  Either way it
> should be coloured red not green in the last call document disposition
> of comments document. Being a duplicate comment (which it wasn't,
> exactly) is not the same as being "not applicable".
> 

David,

I was only simplifying things by assigning to best choice I had available 
to me.  Since then we've added a "duplicate" status and it links to the 
original comment thread.  It was marked a neutral color to not 
overemphasize agree or disagree, when made in duplicate.

http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/2006/LC_Comments/CDRFWICDLC2.xml#LC2-132

Regards,
Steve Speicher
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2007 13:44:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:41 GMT