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

On Apr 30, 2010, at 6:51 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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 < 
> id=9627>, "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).

Thanks. Given that separate bug report, do you still object to closing  


Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 21:43:17 UTC