Hi all, On 2013 Jun 28, at 18:49 , Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote: > Am 28.06.13 18:39, schrieb Arle Lommel: >> [Responding to two mails here, starting with Dave and then Felix.] >> >> Hi Dave, >> >>> This makes a lot of sense. I'd support this approach. >> >> Unless someone objects > > I do :) > > >> , let me see what I can formalize using this approach then. > > I would propose that you continue with the mapping in an approach independent of the way how to represent the MQM information in (ITS 2.0) markup. That will allow us to discuss these two items separately. Would that work? I think that the mapping is already done and up to date in the Wiki. Or am I missing something else you want to see there? -Arle
Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 16:56:31 UTC