- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 17:17:34 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1377 ------- Additional Comments From scott_boag@us.ibm.com 2005-07-07 17:17 ------- I don't love MSM's proposed wording. I think there are three alternatives: 1) Use the word "parser" instead of tokenizer" but otherwise keep the note as is. 2) Wait for someone to come up with alternative text that we can all live with. 3) Drop the note. The issue and the subsequent decision was a result of a concern by one of the WG members that treatment of "<" was unclear. I think that was before we were keeping issue numbers, and I'm not going through the mail archives looking for instances of "<". I'm happy with either #1 or #3, slightly favoring #3.
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2005 17:17:37 UTC