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

Re: Math WG comments on latest CDF documents

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:39:45 +0200
Message-ID: <10010560298.20070330003945@w3.org>
To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Cc: sspeiche@us.ibm.com, ron.ausbrooks@mackichan.com, member-math@w3.org, <public-cdf@w3.org>

On Thursday, March 29, 2007, 11:28:25 PM, David wrote:

DC> 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.

DC> As a personal response, I don't think that this is sufficiently clear
DC> logging of the status. The current situation makes it look as if the
DC> original comment which was essentially re-raised has now been agreed to
DC> be non-applicable which certainly is NOT the case. Marking it as "disagree"
DC> would be clearest, or as an absolute minimum marking it as duplicate of
DC> the earlier comment would be just about acceptable.  Either way it
DC> should be coloured red not green in the last call document disposition
DC> of comments document. Being a duplicate comment (which it wasn't,
DC> exactly) is not the same as being "not applicable".

I think that explicitly marking it as a duplicate is the best way
forward. That would avoid the 'double count' concern that Steve
mentioned. And it should be coloured red because it has the same
status as the comment it closely duplicates.

I agree that 'not applicable' is not an obvious way to mark a

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2007 22:39:48 UTC

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