- 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
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 UTC