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

On 04/30/2010 05:42 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 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
>> <>, "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
> ISSUE-81?

Julian: Ping?

> Regards,
> Maciej

- Sam Ruby

Received on Wednesday, 5 May 2010 16:57:56 UTC