RE: [WNET] Draft summary of WNET proposal document

> I do not see any source of confusion.

No doubt just me being stupid.  I understand what you mean now.

 it is a preliminary thing that 
> should contain -as explained inside- the way to procede and the 
> appropriate links. The action is now on, but the document will be 
> updated during the work.
> 
> Possibly this editor draft could eventually result as redundant, 
> given the TF description and the related ongoing documents. If so, it 
> won't survive.

I suggest we not aim to publish this in note form but merge it in with the
TF description.  Then we can craft an appropriate email message to be sent
to Christiana, with appropriate references to the WG charter, TF description
etc.  This will avoid duplication.

 as well as for the other 
> components, in the role of active contributors.
> 
> Please help me with suggestions on the most formal aspects of W3C 
> notes, but if you do not want to appear as coeditor, no problem. I 
> have assumed, as in most scientific research, that common work and 
> contributions should be recognised. Now I learn about the etiquette 
> thing. All right.

I think you are right.  It is important that folks work and contribution is
recognised and I appreciate that you're including my name was meant kindly.

> 
> Once more, I recommend a good practice in general.  Provided etiquette 
> is respected, let's concentrate on actual research contributions,

Just so, though I think you mean technical, rather than research there.

Did you come to a resolution on the word sense discussion that has been
silent awaiting your response since [1].  Since you haven't responded to any
of the points raised in it, I suspect it got lost somewhere and you haven't
seen it.

Brian

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Jun/0060.html

Received on Friday, 9 July 2004 05:58:54 UTC