- From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:14:15 -0400
- To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, WSD Public <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Yes, I believe this was resolved, and the editorial action is no longer applicable. On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 11:47, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote: > Jonathan, > > I've tracked down the ambiguous editorial action item, described as: > "2004-11-10: Editor remove ambiguity if it exists" > > This has to do with the "Unique GED" objection[1], and David Booth's > proposal[2], more particularly his summary slide[3]. > > David seemed to be saying that the (at the time) exisitng operation name > mapping requirements was worded ambiguously. > > I haven't followed this issue very closely, but has it not been solved > since the comment was made? > > Jean-Jacques. > > [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0038.html> > [2] <http://www.w3.org/2004/Talks/1110-dbooth-opname/> > [3] <http://www.w3.org/2004/Talks/1110-dbooth-opname/slide25-0.html> -- David Booth W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 17:14:28 UTC