Re: migrating some sections to vnext requirements docs

The whole appendix D need to be replaced with all the records of use cases
as satisfied by V1 that I sent out in e-mail form.  We have a record of
that in the e-mail archives.  We actually have very few things we did not
do (e.g. digital signatures).

Norm and I had a chat about this the other day on the call.  I would prefer
we just publish a separate and concise note that shows how we met V1 use
cases and requirements (or not) and then move on.

We can use this draft as a historical reference and to build the new V2
requirements document.

I think we just tried to do too much in this document and it because hard
to manage.


On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 12:39 PM, James Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com> wrote:

> I think it maybe useful to migrate some of the work done in
>
> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langreq-v2.html
>
> directly into the document I am working on, in their current appendix form.
>
> Use Case Unsatisfied
> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langreq-v2.html#use-case-unsatisfied
>
> Input Collected
> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langreq-v2.html#input-collected
>
> Any objections to the above ?
>
> Also I think we could consider publishing the new steps as a separate
> Note or consider inclusion in the vnext requirements doc … though I
> think we should make it clear that new steps would probably be
> considered under a Note first before inclusion in the spec itself.
>
> thoughts ?
>
> J
>
>


-- 
--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics