RE: References to XML in SML specs

I am satisfied with Henry's original wording.

 

It seems to get us back on track-otherwise, we seem to be coming up with
more and more problems that need to be explicitly addressed.  For
example, the MUST/MAY distinction requires further explanation regarding
detection of what version is actually being used in order to resolve
Henry's issue with that statement.

 

Kirk Wilson, Ph.D.

Research Staff Member, CA Labs

603 823-7146 (preferred)

Cell:  603 991-8873

 

This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please
delete this e-mail and notify the sender immediately.

From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of John Arwe
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 2:55 PM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: Re: References to XML in SML specs

 


We agreed to do our best to resolve this question via email (keep in
mind, Henry has given regrets for next Monday). 
Should I interpret the 2 full days of silence as evidence that the
working group was fully persuaded by Henry's arguments, and we now have
consensus to proceed using his proposed wording (unmodified)? 

Best Regards, John

TACCT: Simplicity is ultimate sophistication 
                                       -- Leonardo da Vinci
Street address: 2455 South Road, P328 Poughkeepsie, NY USA 12601
Voice: 1+845-435-9470      Fax: 1+845-432-9787