Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed

On Thursday 26 September 2002 04:23 pm, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> OK.  I guess I like to be particularly careful in a situation where the
> wording has been such a problem and where, in this case an outside
> respondent, has proposed a specific format as a resolution to an issue
> that wouldn't close.   We're agreeing:  it's only a question of how
> careful we want to be to avoid misunderstandings.  Thanks.

BTW: I'm not advocating for a short name, nor that particular format; I was 
just using that as a way in which the identifier, the definition/behaviour, 
and conformance requirements are more explicit. (In the XKMS spec I'm 
trying to ensure all identifiers have a meaning, and every MUST/MAY/SHOULD 
has some subject and (testable) requirement:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2002Sep/0024.html
)