- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:34:21 -0400
- To: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Hi, Nikunj- Nikunj Mehta wrote (on 4/24/09 2:24 AM): > > On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Doug Schepers wrote: >> >> Rather than change the charter (which would require everyone who's >> already rejoined to re-rejoin at the simplest, and might require >> another AC review at the worst), Nikunj offered that he would be >> satisfied if more generic wording were put in the charter, and >> highlighted as an issue. Sorry, typo... I meant to say, "if more generic wording were put in the *spec*". (Depending on the outcome of the WG's decision on the matter, we could change the charter language during our next rechartering, too, if necessary.) > To be precise, I suggested that we can table the charter issue for now, > and emphasize in the spec that we haven't finalized SQL as the only > structured storage access solution. Yes, thanks for the correction... my original sentence didn't make much sense. :) >Preferably, the current Section 4 > would be renamed as > [[ > Structured Storage > ]] > > with the following wording in it: > [[ > The working group is currently debating whether SQL is the right > abstraction for structured storage. > ]] So, the phrase above is already in the spec... the only thing you're asking now is for Section 4 to be renamed, right? Seems pretty minor. Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Friday, 24 April 2009 06:34:32 UTC