Re: Gloss standard terminology for resource/representation (ISSUE-81 Change Proposal)

On 29.04.2010 10:31, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> ...
>> I also note that the current text got objections from both Roy and me,
>> and Dan was proposing to make the citations more specific (which I
>> supported).
> What we're looking for now (were, actually, the deadline has now passed)
> is for people who object to closing the issue without prejudice, rather
> than people who object to the details of the text. As acknowledged in
> the CfC, we know some people would like more extensive changes, but we
> believe there has been more than adequate time to express other points
> of view in the form of a Change Proposal.
> ...

I have opened bug <>, 
"be more specific in external references" -- this applies not only to 
the case that Dan mentioned, but to many other sections in the spec. (So 
we can discuss it separately from ISSUE-81).

Best regards, Julian

Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 13:51:52 UTC