- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:45:21 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
At 11:08 27/09/04 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: >In our 13 Sep telcon, I took an action to propose a >response to > >"AWWW, 20040816 release, sections 1 and 2" >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0059= >.html > >I just looked them over for the 2nd time, and while I'm inclined >to incorporate many of the smaller suggestions, they seem editorial. > >So I'm actually not proposing any substantive changes in response >to this comment after all. > >Norm, is it straightforward for you to reply to this comment, >saying which comments you integrated and which ones you didn't? FWIW, to avoid unproductive paperchase, I'm content for you to use or ignore the various editorial comments as you see fit. Dan's response above is sufficient for me. I'd like to think that, moving forward, my concerns of message dilution might encourage TAG to focus and slim down rather than broaden the architecture document. But that's clearly outside the scope of your immediate task of getting _this_ document fully published. #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Monday, 27 September 2004 16:49:17 UTC