W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-er@w3.org > February 2012

Re: David's less simple example

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:43:50 -0500
Message-ID: <4F4D66B6.3090601@arcanedomain.com>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
CC: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, "public-xml-er@w3.org Community Group" <public-xml-er@w3.org>

On 2/28/2012 1:46 PM, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> Yes, I am arguing that the editor use case is an overwhelming
> objection.

As I just wrote in an earlier e-mail, I think the elephant in this 
particular room is the lack of an agreed list of such use cases. Is the 
"editor" use case an agreed requirement, a nice to have if it falls out, or 
not to be worried about at all? Is there such a list that I've missed.

I think we're going to thrash on questions like whether it's worth 
diverging from HTML5 fixup rules if we don't have some agreement on 
prioritizing the use cases.

Noah
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 23:44:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 28 February 2012 23:44:16 GMT