- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:59:50 +0100
- To: sspeiche@us.ibm.com
- Cc: member-math@w3.org, public-cdf@w3.org, ron.ausbrooks@mackichan.com
Steve, > I was only simplifying things by assigning to best choice I had available > to me Surely the best choice was (and still is) to mark the resolution as disagree as that is unfortunately the outcome. Marking it as anything else (including its present state) just gives the impression that the CDF group is trying to artificially lower the "disagree" count. Comments on an earlier draft, even if it was a "last call" are quite likely to be less appropriate for later drafts as, by the nature of things the text in later drafts will have changed. The Math WG went to some trouble to review the second last call and send new comments, we didn't just leave the old comments to stand. If the comments are just going to brushed off as a duplicate, why did we bother, in fact why have a second review call at all? MathML is the oldest XML application and is specifcally designed to be used in "compound document formats". It and all other textual language formats will be harmed if frameworks based on the current CDF specs are deployed, and surely it's not asking too much that the Math WG's disagreement with the current CDF specs are unambiguously recorded? David (personal response)
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2007 13:59:52 UTC