Re: ISSUE-78: Definitions

ISSUE-78 is a very high-level comment about having definitions,
"shouldn't we have definitions in the document?"

Given that the current editor's draft includes a lot of them (and
generally tries to define terms before they are used), and that we
maintain a glossary in the wiki as a source for more definitions as
a matter of course, I sense that we're at a point where we can say
yes, we will have definitions, and yes, we know how to get them into
the rec-track document, therefore, this high-level issue can be
considered closed, with a strong "Yes, sure" as the answer to the
question.

Where definitions will miss, I'm pretty sure individual issues will
be opened.

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>

Received on Sunday, 12 August 2007 12:22:13 UTC