Jim Hendler wrote: > If the WG indicates that they agree with Peter and/or prefer this decision, > I will be willing to revisit our decision. If not, then we can go to LC > without the semantics document, and resolve this and release that document > in LC form as soon thereafter as we can If you're looking for support, than count me in as follows: - I support Peter's objection (that last night's resolution lets "assertional content" creep into descriptions) - even if the semantics document could be fixed, it would still be unattractive (Peter Crowther's points on this were well made) - going to LC without the semantics document would be unacceptable in my opinion. My first preference is Peter's proposal and I would rather not have unique-names construction at all, rather than going to LC without a semantics document. Frank. ----Received on Friday, 20 December 2002 17:11:05 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 27 January 2005 18:04:56 GMT