- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 15:30:36 -0500
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 13:21 -0700, David Orchard wrote: > > DanC: I'm disappointed that the document is going in the > > opposite of > > the direction I advised, which was to integrate the > > definitions into > > the material so that they're motivated > > I share the concern.. I also wonder if a standalone terminology doc > will just be ignored as being to abstract. BUT, if there's a push to > make smaller docs, this is one way to do it. Meanwhile, I was reading too fast. The definitions do seem to have an example woven into them. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning 18 May 2007 More later, I hope... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 21 May 2007 20:30:41 UTC