- From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:28:48 -0500
- To: "TAN Kuan Hui" <kuanhui@xemantics.com>, "Bas de Bakker" <bas@x-hive.com>, <www-ql@w3.org>
At 09:40 PM 1/27/2004, TAN Kuan Hui wrote:
> > But resolving the ambiguity is important. For what it's worth, every entry
> > in this thread is reminiscent of discussions we had at length within the
> > Working Group. These are reasonable positions, but not new ones.
> >
>So if grammar ambiguity can be resolved, would the Working Group kindly
>reconsider having an optional else clause ?
Well, first off, this is the wrong list if you want to make a request of
the Working Group. To give feedback to the Working Group, please use this list:
<mailto:public-qt-comments@w3.org?Subject=Re:%20%5BXQuery%5D%20Computed%20CDATA%20constructor&In-Reply-To=%3C760A9F79-13C9-11D8-BD38-000A278462D6@apple.com%3E&References=%3C760A9F79-13C9-11D8-BD38-000A278462D6@apple.com%3E>public-qt-comments@w3.org
If you make your comment there, then the Working Group will be required to
make an official response. We will enter the message into a last call
comments list and discuss it in a meeting, then announce what we decided.
If you want my prediction .... I think this has already been discussed to
death on several occasions, and it is somewhat unlikely that we will change
this. But if you make the comment on the public comments list (I think you
have, actually), then we do have to consider this again.
Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:30:44 UTC