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

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 UTC