Re: Comments on * DRAFT * Rules Working Group Charter $Revision: 1.60 $

> Dear all,
> 
> sorry, I did not know that the draft was not indented to be discussed at 
> this email
> list. It is slightly surprising since the draft recommends to discuss 
> technical issues
> related to it at this mailing list. I will post my comments to an internal 
> W3C lists and
> hope the draft agenda is soon open to public discussions. I think it needs 
> it desperately.
> 
>          -- dieter

Sorry, no, this confusion is my fault.  The draft *is* public, and
this mailing is fine for discussing it.  It had not yet been
announced, however, because I wanted to give the AC a little time to
react first.  (We're still refining this process, and it can be
complicated.) 

The only thing I'd avoid on this list are points like:

> These languages are neither 
> justified by a proven body of research nor by a body of implemented 
> reasoners nor industrial experience. It is quite hard to understand why W3C 
> wants to commit to such enterprises?

Maybe I'm reading that text incorrectly, but I think it's an argument
that it would be best for the W3C to take a particular course of
action.  And *that* kind of argument really belongs in the advisory
committee (probably *after* any technical disagreements are made very
clear) because such decisions are their territory.

I'm working on a reply to your e-mail in which I try to isolate the
technical elements, as I understand them.

    -- sandro