processing proposal for getObjectExtent issues

All --

So far I think we have agreed to a couple things in the getObjectExtent 
(gOE) clarifications:

1.) fixing the sentence that has the unclear reference to Style Properties, 
which ones are allowed and which are not;
2.) deleting the word "abstract" and linking "locus" to a glossary entry.

In the current DoC draft document there is an item for each of these.

Now we're starting to discuss specific detailed cases, and more questions 
are arising as we go on.  It seems to me that these discussions could go on 
for a while.  In the end, we will probably at least include some 
detailed-case clarifications.   Conceivably, we could reverse or modify 
some earlier decisions.

Proposal:  close the 1st Last Call DoC, negotiate resolutions, and carry 
these on as further intra-WG development and refinement.  We would then 
endorse any further changes (to gOE and as well as other expected 
implementor-discovered stuff) in a quick 2nd LC. (We anticipated 
progression like this in our schedule.)

The alternative is to leave the 1st LC processing open as we sort through 
all the gOE details, and incorporate all gOE resolutions in a single 
lump.  I have a slight preference for the "Proposal", as it let's us wrap 
up 10-12 1st LC issues (including I18N) and publish a new WD or editors 
draft.

Thoughts?

-Lofton.