- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 14:21:34 -0800
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Cc: <Chris.Ferris@sun.com>, <fallside@us.ibm.com>, <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, <highland.m.mountain@intel.com>, <hugo@w3.org>, <jones@research.att.com>, <marc.hadley@sun.com>, <ohurley@iona.com>, <ylafon@w3.org>, <www-archive@w3.org>
Not to be picky nor to put additional burden on Stuart but I am slightly uncomfortable with the ednote as it stands. I realize that the purpose is to give some flexibility in how we want to move forward. However, it seems to be such a central part of the model that I am wondering whether it would be good to qualify the differences a bit more explicitly so that people don't get the impression that we are completely opening up the floor to suggestions - this was at least not my impression from today's meeting. Could we for example promote Noah's suggestion by providing an alternative piece of text? Henrik Frystyk Nielsen mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com >Sorry to be dumping this all in your in-trays... hopefully a >third and final version. The merging of the two paragraphs >that Henrik noticed required a slight tweak to Noah's ednote >to refer to a single paragraph above rather than two. > >Changes are: merged paragraphs and tweak to the ednote.
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2001 17:22:38 UTC