Re: draft for tag issue

I like this wording. Just a couple tweaks for tone: change "we are not 
an API" to "this is not an API" and change "We trust you'll find" to "We 
hope you'll find". Otherwise looks good to use Lisa's message with 
Janina's edit. Michael

On 14/09/2020 8:37 a.m., Janina Sajka wrote:
> Lisa, All:
>
> Looking at this again after all this time, I'm inclined to change the
> last sentence:
>
> Is the edited content more understandable?
>
> To something that isn't a direct question for which we're not likely to
> get an answer. Perhaps something like:
>
> We trust you'll find this revised document more inline with your needs.
> Please let us know how we can further assist in moving this technology
> forward.
>
> Best,
>
> Janina
>
> Lisa Seeman writes:
>> Does anyone mind the following ording in response to the tag issue -  and
>> is there a reason to delay in sending it?
>> Bare in mind Michael reformatted it some more.
>>
>> We have  restructured and changed our explainer according to your
>> comments. (See Explainer-for-Personalization-Semantic
>> <https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Explainer-for-Personalization-Semantics>s.
>> )  We have tried to follow the TAG template but we felt it was
>> important to add a few sections to support understanding of our
>> approach.  We should clarify that we are not an API (though we might
>> support an API in the future) and that the main task was to
>> clarify/explain it.
>>
>> Is the edited content more understandable?
>>
>> Thanking you in advance
>>
>> The personalization task force , Becky and Janina etc...