Daniel, I went ahead and made some modifications in that paragraph (see also the diff file). Is that ok now? Ivan > On 26 Apr 2017, at 11:13, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > >> On 26 Apr 2017, at 10:24, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: >> >> Le 25/04/2017 à 12:43, Ivan Herman a écrit : >>> Daniel, >>> >>> I have just made an update to the proposed charter text (still in the separate branch[1]): >>> >>> - separated the rec-track and non-rec-track documents in the list of input documents >>> - I have also added a reference to HTML, CSS, and SVG in the list of input documents with some general text on why those documents appear there >>> >>> Are these o.k. with you? >> >> Sorry for the delay, I had too much on my radar yesterday to >> review your changes. >> >> Your changes are fine by me with one exception, that I spent a lot >> time thinking about: I still think the two last sentences of the last >> paragraph of the Scope section, starting with "EPUB 4 must not..." >> should be dropped or modified enough to be a recommended option and not >> an enforcement any more. This is something to be decided by the WG and >> such a technical choice should not be enforced by the Charter. To be >> more precise, I can't accept the too strong "must not" and "must be >> a type". >> > > Keep the sentence with s/must/should/? Would that work? > > Ivan > > > > >> With a compromise there, I would withdraw my formal objection. >> >> Hth. >> >> </Daniel> >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Publishing@W3C Technical Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Publishing@W3C Technical Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2017 11:13:49 UTC