Re: Actions: 9, 18, 11 completed, maybe 6?

My understanding of the action is that the consensus of the WG was that 
the definitions appear inline
in the prose of the document where they first appear. We can then use a 
transform to collect all of the
termdefs together into a glossary section.

Basically, what is needed is for each defined term, find its first use and 
insert the definition there.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295

public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org wrote on 07/18/2006 04:08:24 AM:

> I think that 6 - the ref in the cvs comments is wrong by a day, it's 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action06 - might
> not actually be done.  All I did was move the element policy into 
> the terminology section.  The terms all seem defined in proper 
> xmlspec format. I didn't add any references to the terms.  The minutes 
say
> Terminology section 2.3 review paul asks whether all terms defined 
> in this section
> Terms defined are not the same
> Discussion of options for links between definitions and uses.
> <maryann> q
> paul asks editors to consider how links of defs to uses
> <cferris> ack
> <scribe> ACTION: editors to align termdef with other w3c style [recorded 
in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action06]
> <cferris> note: paulc had suggested e.g. XML Query's use of termdef
> Then it said Felix got the issue on which terminology is normative,
> felix, xquery style explained. Issue of which occurence of defintion
> is normative
> <scribe> ACTION: felix, to draft issue about which terminology is 
> normative [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-
> minutes.html#action07]
> 
> 
> What do y'all think?  More supposed to be done?
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave