Re: Section 3 +

It is my opinion (as expressed in the teleconference on 9 february) is
that we should open the pandora's box and explicitly state the most
important needs, in part because I am not convinced that we will end up
with a massive list of extra requirements. I still hold that opinion.
Which is not to say that I won't change my mind, or wind up proposing this
stuff for the introduction instead - at the moment it is a discussion
piece, which I have cast in the way I see it most appropriately included.

Charles

On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Bruce Roberts/CAM/Lotus wrote:

  
       My understanding of the spirit and letter of section 3 conflicts with
  what you're proposing.  Based on the last tele-conference and the current
  working draft, section 3 should only give guidelines that relate to the
  "unique functionality of authoring tools".  If we open this up, I fear
  we'll end up sliding down a slippery slope.  While I'm not crazy about
  guideline #3 as I've stated previously, I can live with it if we keep it in
  this restricted sense.
  
       There is an Editor's Note for guideline #3 stating that the
  introduction will be re-written to highlight some of the main points
  provided by the other standards documents.  Maybe your checkpoints could go
  there.
  
  -- Bruce

Received on Tuesday, 23 March 1999 18:43:38 UTC