- From: Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>
- Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 23:31:33 +0100
- To: "Natasha Noy" <noy@smi.stanford.edu>
- Cc: "SWBPD list" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
* Natasha | | So, maybe it is just the matter of wording (the current wording gives | an impression that there is more under the hood than you present, which | is not the case) and level of detail then. What you have there now is | rather terse. Yes, I think it is mostly the wording. The problem seems to have been inherited from the original document: Garshol gives the impression that his analysis does not cover a bunch of issues, and then promptly proceeds to cover them. We didn't catch this first time around and this led to ambiguity in the wording. Steve
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2005 22:32:42 UTC