> On 26 Apr 2017, at 10:24, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: > > Le 25/04/2017 à 12:43, Ivan Herman a écrit : >> Daniel, >> >> I have just made an update to the proposed charter text (still in the separate branch[1]): >> >> - separated the rec-track and non-rec-track documents in the list of input documents >> - I have also added a reference to HTML, CSS, and SVG in the list of input documents with some general text on why those documents appear there >> >> Are these o.k. with you? > > Sorry for the delay, I had too much on my radar yesterday to > review your changes. > > Your changes are fine by me with one exception, that I spent a lot > time thinking about: I still think the two last sentences of the last > paragraph of the Scope section, starting with "EPUB 4 must not..." > should be dropped or modified enough to be a recommended option and not > an enforcement any more. This is something to be decided by the WG and > such a technical choice should not be enforced by the Charter. To be > more precise, I can't accept the too strong "must not" and "must be > a type". > Keep the sentence with s/must/should/? Would that work? Ivan > With a compromise there, I would withdraw my formal objection. > > Hth. > > </Daniel> > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Publishing@W3C Technical Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2017 09:13:35 UTC