Re: Announcement of Calls for Objections on ISSUE-170

Hi Ninja,

Is Option A here meant to be my suggested text for Issue-170?  If so, you
included an extra sentence (the last sentence).  My suggested text was
meant to also delete the last line "A first party MAY elect to follow the
rules defined here for third parties.²

Thatıs the reason mine was Œmergedı with Chris and Susanıs.

If Option A is meant to be my text, can I have that last sentence deleted
from the option?  As said by numerous members, that sentence is
unnecessary for the spec and will only create confusion.


On 6/18/14, 1:25 PM, "Ninja Marnau" <> wrote:

>Dear WG participants,
>as discussed in the call today we have to do a Call for Objections to
>decide upon the text for ISSUE-170: Limitations around data append and
>first parties. I kindly ask you to participate, if you have objections
>against one of the two text proposals. Deadline for your objections is
>July 2, midnight Eastern.
>[Call for Objections] Limitations for first parties
>Thank you,

Received on Thursday, 19 June 2014 22:17:50 UTC