- From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 00:53:41 +0000
- To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
- CC: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Friday, November 11, 2011 7:33 AM, Karl Dubost wrote: > Nick, > > Le 11 nov. 2011 à 09:28, Nicholas Doty a écrit : > > Karl, in your suggestions you had "specification" at the end of each title > > (currently we have it on only the compliance document). Do you have a > > reasoning for using "specification" in the titles? Other W3C spec titles seem > > to be inconsistent. > > Drop it everywhere. > > ps: the compliance term is a strong issue but I will not argue for this 1st > public Working Draft. Expect me to come back to it later on. tracking- > compliance is definitely the wrong term for me. As I said on the telcon, I agree with Karl that the "compliance" name is unfortunate. I don't want to bikeshed spec names, I don't have strong feelings about the other spec, and I don't want to block FPWD, but I will join Karl in requesting a change be considered in future away from "compliance". Cheers, Adrian.
Received on Saturday, 12 November 2011 00:54:43 UTC