- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 07 Feb 2003 10:43:05 -0800
- To: Scott McGlashan <scott.mcglashan@pipebeach.com>
- Cc: www-voice@w3.org, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Stuart Williams <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 07:07, Scott McGlashan wrote: > Hi Dan, > > Thank you for your public comments on SRGS 1.0. > > This issue has been discussed many times within the group. It is > explicitly discussed in the Last Call Disposition of Comments - > http://www.w3.org/2002/06/speech-grammar-comments.html#GC09-20 - where > we took into account the W3C Director's requested modification. Since > the SMIL 2.0 Recommendation uses 'type' in a similar way, we believe > there are other specs which set the precedence and, at this stage, no > 'fix' is required. I disagree; I don't find this a satisfactory justification for declining my request. In fact, I don't see any technical justification the way the spec is at all. > However, if further evidence comes to light, please > let us know. No, the burden is on you to (attempt to) satisfy me. "5.2.4 Proposed Recommendation (PR) Entrance criteria. Before advancing a technical report to Proposed Recommendation, the Director must be satisfied that: [...] 2. the Working Group has formally addressed issues raised during the previous review or implementation period (possibly modifying the technical report)" -- http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#RecsCR If you aren't interested in negotiating further based on the information I sent, be sure to note this as outstanding dissent when you request Proposed Rec status. > The SRGS testsuite already contains tests for this feature. Pointer, please? > Scott > Co-Chair, VBWG > Co-Editor, SRGS 1.0 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 7 February 2003 13:44:27 UTC