- From: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:21:30 -0400
- To: "public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF84FF4644.0B4C98B8-ON85257372.004EAB4D-85257372.004F0812@us.ibm.com>
As far as I know you are correct, I have no objection if you make the update. From what I have heard recently about how the editors arbitrate ownership, you would also have to clear "assigned to" (or change it to yourself, if you are working on them) when you transition them to editorial. I think it is merely an artifact of Sandy rushing madly to clear out things that would otherwise hold up other people while he is at W3C meetings this week and next, e.g. revising the refs and schema bindings proposals. Best Regards, John Street address: 2455 South Road, Poughkeepsie, NY USA 12601 Voice: 1+845-435-9470 Fax: 1+845-432-9787 Kumar Pandit <kumarp@windows.microsoft.com> Sent by: public-sml-request@w3.org 10/12/2007 04:10 AM To "public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org> cc Subject ref bugs I think the following bugs have already reached a consensus since we agreed on the ref proposal. Are they waiting for some other aspect before they are marked as editorial? 4658 How should deref() treat multiple child elements that use the same ref scheme 4683 What should deref() return when there are multiple matches 4865 clearly doc requirements for defining a reference scheme
Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 14:22:06 UTC