- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:14:27 -0400
- To: Eduardo Gutentag <egutentag@gmail.com>
- CC: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Steve Zilles <steve@zilles.org>, public-w3process@w3.org, 'Giuseppe Pascale' <giuseppep@opera.com>, ab@w3.org, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
On 3/20/2012 1:41 PM, Eduardo Gutentag wrote: > > > On 03/20/2012 09:31 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:18:24 +0100, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> On 3/20/2012 12:05 AM, Steve Zilles wrote: >>>> All, >>>> There are already 3 items on the List of Concerns [1], all under >>>> Contextual/Social Framework, that, separately, cover various >>>> aspects of this request. These are: >>>> * What are the various audiences for documents? >>>> * Desire for stable reference. >>>> * Official drafts are disconnected from some audience needs. >>>> It does not seem necessary to add anything to the list, but the >>>> request should be considered with these items. >>> >>> I agree that the three bullets referenced could (in principle) >>> include the issue of how organizations that we liaison with >>> normatively reference our standards. But I don't see verbiage in >>> the detailed description that would make me confident that the Open >>> IPTV forum concern got addressed. Would anyone object to making the >>> detailed verbiage more specific to this requirement? >> >> I think that would be great > > +1 > >> and look forward to your wording ;) > > Isn't that verbiage included in the subject line of this thread? Yes, but the subject line of the thread is not part of the List of Concerns. > >> >> cheers >>
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:14:43 UTC