Murray Maloney wrote: > "Faithful infoset" may seem like a bug or a glaring hole in the spec, > but if you look at it just right, it is a feature. Does that mean that in your view we have done a satisfactory job which we do not believe may need review at some point in the future, as opposed to, what I thought was the case, that we have done the best we can, given limitations, but that for GRDDL 2.0 (if such a thing ever happens) this should certainly be looked at again? The reason for asking is that in the first case (a satisfactory job) the record is correct (a closed issue), whereas in the second case (as good as we could do, but unsatisfactory) a postponed issue would be a better record. I was not present when the decision was made, and do not wish to argue about the content of the decision - I am merely trying to ensure that the record is correct. Jeremy -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 EnglandReceived on Friday, 25 May 2007 09:25:56 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:49 GMT