RE: Tweak wording in introduction?

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Arthur Barstow <> wrote:
> On 2/14/13 11:31 PM, ext Jacob Rossi wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Hans Muller <> wrote:
>>> On 2/14/13 10:59 AM, "Rick Byers" <> wrote:
>>> I don't think any of this would qualify as a "substantive change"
>>> (since it's just editorial), so shouldn't impact the last call, right?
>> An editorial change like this would not alter anyone's review/analysis of the spec. Therefore, it shouldn't impact last call. Adding Art just to verify.
>> I've already staged the LC doc. So we'd make these changes in the next Editor's Draft (which I probably won't get to until after W3Conf--perhaps Matt could make this change?).
> Since the Introduction section and all examples are explicitly non-normative, any changes to either or both those would not be considered substantive and thus would not prevent the spec from advancing along the Recommendation track.
> (The spec must return to Working Draft if normative text is changed and the change(s) could affect an implementation.)
> I support the proposed changes to the Introduction and I think it would be OK if the changes to the Introduction were made now, i.e. before the LC is published on February 19 (assuming of course that Jacob or Matt can make the change by Feb 18). But this is certainly not a showstopper for the LC and we can consider Rick and Hans' feedback as "LC comments".

Cool. Change made (to ED and LC drafts):


Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 02:11:29 UTC