Re: goofy literals

Jeremy Carroll wrote:

[...]

> 
> (Hmmm I had thought that the 'yes' text was going to be obviously 
> better, but it's not clear).

Given that the benefit is not clear to you the proposer, and the obvious 
cost of the potential impact on other specs, do you still wish to propse 
the change of terminology?  Can we reduce this to one proposal?

Brian

Received on Thursday, 5 June 2003 09:50:05 UTC