- From: Michael Kohlhase <Michael_Kohlhase@asuka.mt.cs.cmu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:35:53 -0400
- To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- cc: www-math@w3.org
Dear Tim, Thank you for your review of the MathML Specification, we went through the references of the spec and considered referencing CSS 2.1, but in the end decided to restrict the references to recommendations. To help us put together our last call report, we would appreciate it if you could post a brief message acknowledging we've responded to your comments. Michael Kohlhase W3C Math working group > > > Also, I > > > notice that CSS1 and CSS2 are in acknowledgements; there is a CSS2.1 > > coming along (not yet a rec). > > > >We have a general issue to check the references list for any necessary > >updates before the final draft. It depends on timing. I suspect that if > >css 2.1 is not in rec at the time of us going to rec, then the correct > >thing to do is that we reference the latest rec version (which would be > >2.0) rather than the draft of 2.1. It would be different if we were > >using any explicit features only added in a draft version. However it > >is an issue that ought probably be explictly decided rather than me > >inventing policy on the fly, also we ought to take as an issue to track > >css 2.1 and definitely update the reference if you do go to REC before > >us. > > > >Could you send a message about css 2.1 to www-math then it will > >automatically get into our last call issue tracking procedures and won't > >get lost (as private mail to me might;-)
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 17:36:27 UTC