Re: semantics editors draft

Brian McBride wrote:

> Great stuff Pat.  I will upload the latest version so the WG page points
> to it as the ed's working draft.
> 
> Re issue closures:
> 
> We closed horst-01 last week so thats done and you can send the
> response, but you need to add a link to the decision.
> 
> Regarding the others, since we don't have a telecon this week, is there
> anything to be gained by asking the commentors whether they would accept
> the proposed resolution in the meantime.  If there are some minor tweaks
> or discussion to be had, this could be done in the meantime.
> 
> Brian


With the pfps-0X issues, Pat is proposing to accept all of them, as 
addressed in the current editors draft.

I suggest that this is sufficiently uncontroversial to do by e-mail, and I 
am prepared to second all the pfps-0X proposals.

pfps-02, pfps-04, pfps-06, pfps-09

http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/policies.html#Consensus
[[
Decisions MAY be made during meetings (face-to-face or distributed) as well 
as through email.
]]

I am sure Peter would prefer to have WG decisions to review.

The pan-01 and qu-03, since Pat is proposing to reject them, should, IMO, 
be dealt with in a telecon.

Jeremy

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 13:51:06 UTC