Frederick Hirsch wrote: > > My preference is to define the terms that are needed in the Framework in > the Framework document, then additional terms needed in Attachments in > that document. Add note to Attachments that other terms associated with > Framework are defined in that document. this seems to be close to b) , and I would be fine with it. Felix > > This was suggested at F2F, seems logical. > > regards, Frederick > > Frederick Hirsch > Nokia > > > On Jul 13, 2006, at 1:31 PM, ext Felix Sasaki wrote: > >> Title - Clarify the relation of overlapping definitions in the framework >> / in the attachement document. >> >> Description - >> >> We should clarify the relation of overlapping definitions in the >> framework / in the attachement document. >> >> Justification - >> >> Some terms are defined in both documents, see [1] and [2]. People who >> want to normatively reference these terms should have only one target. >> >> >> Target - >> >> The sections at [1] and [2]. >> >> Proposal - >> >> I see two possibilities: >> a) Have the term definitions as they are, but adding to one of them a >> statement like "the normative reference for this definition is at xxx". >> "xxx" points to the target definition in the other document. >> b) Have the overlapping definitions only in one document, and pointers >> in the other. >> >> I have no preference for a) or b). >> >> >> [1] >> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework.html#Terminology >> >> [2] >> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-attachement.html#Glossary >> >> >> >> Felix > >Received on Monday, 17 July 2006 01:04:58 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:12 UTC