- From: Eduardo Gutentag <egutentag@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:41:49 -0700
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- CC: Steve Zilles <steve@zilles.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, public-w3process@w3.org, 'Giuseppe Pascale' <giuseppep@opera.com>, ab@w3.org, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
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? > > cheers >
Received on Saturday, 24 March 2012 00:18:49 UTC