W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Posting multipart/form-data

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:28:28 +0100
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Cc: <liam@w3.org>, "Alex Milowski" <alex@milowski.org>, <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5beiijir3n.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Grosso, Paul writes:

> I don't think it matters from where the comment comes.
>
> The PR review ends this Thursday.  If someone (even on
> the WG) comments that they support the PR only if we
> add the missing attribute that we had already decided
> to add, I would think there should be no problem adding
> that between PR and Rec, especially if there were a test
> case with this attribute that 2 implementations passed.

Agreed.  Who will bell the cat? (One of us can do it, you can revise a
response already submitted).

ht
- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLxEdNkjnJixAXWBoRAuqpAJoD0e2dw4Vns1HqZwCBfQrwbIxpDgCeM1yn
SDEKU4lwEOvD/rnBd2KYFcs=
=pNAA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 10:29:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 13 April 2010 10:29:08 GMT