Re: lc-issues updated (28 april)

I myself have a question about our resolution of issue #98 ("shouldn't 
there be a CP about levels?").  Actually, it is peripheral to Originator's 
suggested CP, but still probably deserves a quick think:

Is it a requirement that the nomenclature for levels be One, Two, 
Three...?  Or, for example, could it be A, AA, AAA, if the specification is 
clear about the correspondence of nomenclature to hierarchical conformance?


At 06:47 PM 4/28/03 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>Please have a look at newly "Resolved" issues.  I have done today's p/m/l 
>issue group from memory, while it's still fresh in my mind.
>As we look down the road, at the necessity of Disposition of Comments 
>(DoC) documents, I'm trying to be more thorough about including sufficient 
>material for the DoC documents (i.e., stuff that will be directly 
>usable).  So please have a look at the wording, and complain NOW if you 
>don't like something.
>30, 41, 49, 50, 51, 97, 98
>71:  "burst" and link the 13 OpsGL issues from XML Schema.
>95:  (is GL3 a Dov?)

Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 20:56:04 UTC