Re: processing proposal for getObjectExtent issues

Agreed...I think we should accept your proposal and continue refining in
anticipation of a 2nd LC.

Dave

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>wrote:

> All --
>
> So far I think we have agreed to a couple things in the getObjectExtent
> (gOE) clarifications:
>
> 1.) fixing the sentence that has the unclear reference to Style Properties,
> which ones are allowed and which are not;
> 2.) deleting the word "abstract" and linking "locus" to a glossary entry.
>
> In the current DoC draft document there is an item for each of these.
>
> Now we're starting to discuss specific detailed cases, and more questions
> are arising as we go on.  It seems to me that these discussions could go on
> for a while.  In the end, we will probably at least include some
> detailed-case clarifications.   Conceivably, we could reverse or modify some
> earlier decisions.
>
> Proposal:  close the 1st Last Call DoC, negotiate resolutions, and carry
> these on as further intra-WG development and refinement.  We would then
> endorse any further changes (to gOE and as well as other expected
> implementor-discovered stuff) in a quick 2nd LC. (We anticipated progression
> like this in our schedule.)
>
> The alternative is to leave the 1st LC processing open as we sort through
> all the gOE details, and incorporate all gOE resolutions in a single lump.
> I have a slight preference for the "Proposal", as it let's us wrap up 10-12
> 1st LC issues (including I18N) and publish a new WD or editors draft.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Lofton.
>
>