- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:25:19 -0400
- To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- Cc: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> I updated the working a little bit. I believe this is the formal definition
> of what "at risk" means.
I see you changed
This feature is "at risk" and will be removed from this
specification if not sufficiently implemented
to
This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from this specification
based on implementation experience.
which I'm fine with. The governing language about this matter [1] is
reached by clicking on "at risk" in that message, but it's not 100%
clear.
> Michael Kifer wrote:
> > I object to the current formulation of the At Risk notes.
> > What does it mean "if not sufficiently implemented"?
> > It is not sufficiently clear to me.
> > Also, features #1,2,3, in BLD and the ones in DTB have all different
> > reasons for being marked at risk.
Does Chris' re-wording solve the problem? If not, can you be more
clear about what's unclear? (sorry, but I can't figure out how to be
more clear from just this.)
-- Sandro
[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 19:26:54 UTC