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

That looks fine

Thanks

Mohamed

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Robert Miner <robertm@dessci.com> wrote:

> 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 <innovimax%2Bw3c@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
>



-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €