On 3/20/2012 2:35 PM, Eduardo Gutentag wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> sorry I wasn't clearer; I meant that the subject line wording ("How
> can external organizations reference draft W3C Specifications?")
> should be incorporated as an item in the List of Concerns now instead
> of spending too much time trying to find a more verbose but not
> necessarily more accurate description of the concern.
That was the original proposal rejected by the chair who wants to
shoe-horn it into one of the existing three items he noted.
>
> On 03/20/2012 11:14 AM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>> On 3/20/2012 1:41 PM, Eduardo Gutentag wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/20/2012 09:31 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:18:24 +0100, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/20/2012 12:05 AM, Steve Zilles wrote:
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>> There are already 3 items on the List of Concerns [1], all
>>>>>> under Contextual/Social Framework, that, separately, cover
>>>>>> various aspects of this request. These are:
>>>>>> * What are the various audiences for documents?
>>>>>> * Desire for stable reference.
>>>>>> * Official drafts are disconnected from some audience needs.
>>>>>> It does not seem necessary to add anything to the list, but the
>>>>>> request should be considered with these items.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that the three bullets referenced could (in principle)
>>>>> include the issue of how organizations that we liaison with
>>>>> normatively reference our standards. But I don't see verbiage in
>>>>> the detailed description that would make me confident that the
>>>>> Open IPTV forum concern got addressed. Would anyone object to
>>>>> making the detailed verbiage more specific to this requirement?
>>>>
>>>> I think that would be great
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>> and look forward to your wording ;)
>>>
>>> Isn't that verbiage included in the subject line of this thread?
>>
>> Yes, but the subject line of the thread is not part of the List of
>> Concerns.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>>
>>
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:38:41 UTC