- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:26:59 -0600
- To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
At 12:26 PM 9/9/02 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: >On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Mark Skall wrote: > >[...] > > If we don't want the spec to read as a novel (Alex, your words - and > > I agree) we can't go around defining perfectly clear "unambiguous" > > words. > >What you consider perfectly clear "unambiguous" words results in very >different interpretation by this list members (not counting myself!). >I do not understand why you cannot see that people on this list >(myself excluding) clearly interpret the current definition >differently. For example, some say that the definition is fine because >it excludes behavioral specs, others say it is fine because it does >not exclude them. Clearly, there is a problem, ... It is hard to argue with that -- I agree. There are 18 messages from 5 different people. Some question the meaning of the words as written. Some question whether the alleged (intended) meaning is really the right definition. There are several different suggestions for changes to fix or improve it. We will add it to the issues list, for discussion and resolution in telecon or f2f. -Lofton.
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2002 17:25:54 UTC