On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 15:39, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 14:32, Ian B. Jacobs wrote: > [...] > > * Action PC 2004/02/09: Respond to Tom Worthington's comments in > > light of TAG discussion. [26]Done. [27]Reviewer satisfied that TAG > > has done due diligence, but unhappy with outcome > > Ian, your choice of "Reviewer satisfied" as link text suggests we've > reached consensus with that reviewer. It's clear to me that we have not. I probably should not have tried to abbreviate. Here's what the reviewer wrote: "Thanks, I am satisfied that you have given my comment serious consideration. But as is I don't see the document as being workable, so I will not be recommending use of the Architecture to my students, colleagues or clients." Hence "satisfied we've done due diligence" but clearly "unhappy with outcome." I did not mean to suggest that there was consensus with the reviewer. _ Ian -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260-9447Received on Thursday, 19 February 2004 15:56:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:03 UTC