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

Re: Math WG comments on latest CDF documents

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:28:25 +0100
Message-Id: <200703292128.l2TLSPBY030580@edinburgh.nag.co.uk>
To: sspeiche@us.ibm.com
Cc: ron.ausbrooks@mackichan.com, member-math@w3.org, public-cdf@w3.org


> 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".

Received on Thursday, 29 March 2007 21:28:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:22 UTC