W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > September 2010

RE: [wbs] response to 'Call for Review: Rich Web Clients Activity Proposal - Touch Interface Working Group'

From: Robert Miner <robertm@dessci.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:19:29 -0700
Message-ID: <40A20C534FFFD5438E1A756DD25234D3010FF0BE@franklin.corp.dessci>
To: "David Carlisle" <davidc@nag.co.uk>, <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
Cc: <ion@ams.org>, <www-math@w3.org>
Hi.

I've made all these edits now, with two exceptions:

1) I left the date for the Rec version of mathmlforcss as just "October
2010" for now

2) I didn't update the XLink reference, since it was used historically
-- the text says MathML 2 referred to XLink (version 1), so we want the
reference to point to that, not to the current 1.1 spec.

I checked in the (diff marked) source, but didn't rebuild the HTML.

--Robert



> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Carlisle [mailto:davidc@nag.co.uk]
> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 4:48 AM
> To: Robert Miner
> Cc: innovimax+w3c@gmail.com; ion@ams.org; www-math@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [wbs] response to 'Call for Review: Rich Web Clients
> Activity Proposal - Touch Interface Working Group'
> 
> On 29/08/2010 00:17, Robert Miner wrote:
> > Thanks for voting Mohamed!
> >
> > @David, Patrick,
> >
> > We have concluded we can just go ahead and make corrections like the
> > ones Mohamed pointed out, right?
> >
> > Do we just update the cvs source as usual? I can probably do it.
> >
> > --Robert
> 
> In the case of the reference to mathmlfor css profile, we should
> probably update it to the rec version (fixing date once we know the
> date
> both specs will have) or simply link to the undated version
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 15:20:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 September 2010 15:20:09 GMT