Re: goofy literals

Brian McBride wrote:

> 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
> 

OK - tomorrow morning, I'll send a single proposal based on the plain 
literal unchanged version.

Jeremy

Received on Thursday, 5 June 2003 12:25:07 UTC