Re: Comment from Math WG on CDF Last Calls

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for re-marking the Math WG comment as requested.  At  
present we don't
understand that we need to record any further disagreement.  We are  
all after the
realization of the same sort of 'scientific documents' on the Web.   
Indeed the Math WG
will be happy to provide whatever expertise we can toward producing an
XHTML+CSS+SVG+XForms+MathML Profile for CDI.   Can you say something of
what the requirements will be?

All the best,


On Apr 18, 2007, at 11:13 AM, Kevin E Kelly wrote:
> We have marked the 2nd Last Call comment as "Disagree" per your  
> request. We had marked it as duplicate because we believe your 2nd  
> Last call comment is a duplicate of your 1st Last Call comment on  
> the same topic. However, both comments are now marked as "Disagree".
> 1st Last Call Comment 
> cdf/2006Jan/0069.html
> 2nd Last Call Comment 
> cdf/2006Dec/0008.html
> See the last call comment dispositions for the 2 last calls:
> 1st LC
> 2nd LC
> The paragraph that was commented on is currently paragraph 2.1 of  
> the Compound Document by Reference Framework 1.0
> The description of the currently supported method for a child  
> documents to access the CSS properties of a parent document is  
> documented in the last paragraph of section 2.1. This approach of  
> documenting how it can be done today with scripting is consistent  
> with how we handled other cross document by reference boundary  
> issues such as events across document boundaries.
> This comment, as well as the other "disagrees" will be discussed  
> during the CR transition process.
> In addition to the 2 comments marked as disagree, is the MathML WG  
> considering a formal objection the CDF WG CR request? If so, we  
> would like to document that as part of the CR transition process.
> Kevin

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:58:39 UTC