- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:32:37 +0100
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
* Chris Lilley wrote: >BH> So you are saying that in the case above prose and schema could not be >BH> in conflict and yet you agree that prose and schema are in conflict. No >BH> sense it makes to me, sorry I am. So still failing to see how the text >BH> under discussion is not redundant with D.3.1 (if appropriate at all), I >BH> stand by my objection. > >We have considered your request to remove the third paragraph of D.2 >Terminology after "All examples are informative, not normative." on the >grounds of redundancy with D.3.1. I did not request that. >We find that the indicated text contains important information not >conveyed in D.3.1 and that its removal would therefore make the >specification less precise. It would also reduce compliance to the QA >Specification guidelines. Ah, then it should be easy for the Working Group to cite a case in which the text under discussion is obviously not redundant. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Wednesday, 28 December 2005 18:32:23 UTC