RE: Is LC issue 309 misdirected at Primer?

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#x309