Agreed, so 227 is a dupe too ;-) Gudge -----Original Message----- From: Nilo Mitra (EUS) [mailto:Nilo.Mitra@am1.ericsson.se] Sent: 03 September 2002 21:16 To: Martin Gudgin; Nilo Mitra (EUS); Jean-Jacques Moreau; Marc Hadley; Noah Mendelson; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen Cc: W3C Public Archive Subject: RE: Is LC issue 309 misdirected at Primer? Could the resolution of Issue 333 [3] have a bearing on the handling of this issue? Nilo [3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x333 -----Original Message----- From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 3:54 PM To: Nilo Mitra (EUS); Jean-Jacques Moreau; Marc Hadley; Noah Mendelson; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen Cc: W3C Public Archive Subject: RE: Is LC issue 309 misdirected at Primer? I agree this is a comment on the spec in general. It is also a dupe ( of Issue 277[2] ) Gudge [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x277 -----Original Message----- From: Nilo Mitra (EUS) [mailto:Nilo.Mitra@am1.ericsson.se] Sent: 03 September 2002 20:36 To: Nilo Mitra (EUS); 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; Martin Gudgin; 'Marc Hadley'; 'Noah Mendelson'; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen Cc: 'W3C Public Archive' Subject: Is LC issue 309 misdirected at Primer? Gentlemen: Might perhaps LC issue 309 [1] be a more general matter, and misdirected at Part0: Primer by mistake? (The remainder of the originator's comments are on the Primer, from which this one is an excerpt.) Please clarify, Thanks Nilo [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x309Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 16:17:41 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:31:53 UTC