W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2003

Re: Precise Definition for Interoperability Needed (Was RE: [Minu tes] 6-7 Feb 2003 TAG ftf meeting (why XML))

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:09:15 +0100
Message-ID: <6789596562.20030228190915@w3.org>
To: www-tag@w3.org, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
CC: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>

On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, 10:59:09 PM, Claude wrote:

BCLL> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
>>Suggestions for improving that text are more
>>interesting, at this point, than picking
>>up random points out of the context of the meeting.

BCLL> The only statement I don't understand is:

BCLL> "Persistence; there is lots of redundancy"

BCLL> and that only because I don't understand the 
BCLL> relationship of persistence and redundancy.

In the source of that document is a comment (from me that says much
the same thing - no clue what that is supposed to mean. Coments are
however not preserved, it seems, in generating the html (which is okay
according to the xml spec, but unfortunate).

BCLL> I can't make a suggestion for a change because 
BCLL> I don't understand the point, so I won't suggest 
BCLL> one or post an issue.  It may be the kind of text 
BCLL> that benefits from annotation at a later date; eg, the 
BCLL> excellent Annotated XML Specification that Tim 
BCLL> Bray provided for XML 1.0.

I propose that unless someone speaks up and explains, it we just drop
that bullet point.

 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 13:09:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:57 UTC