- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:47:38 -0800
- To: "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <paul.cotton@microsoft.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
> - The author-only view of the main document, plus the fact that > it was actively maintained and reviewed by itself for quality, > was sufficient to largely satisfy the requirements for a > normative language reference. If you add "adequately" to "reviewed by itself for quality" then I don't think this is currently a "fact", nor do I see any concrete plans or work schedule to make sure "actively maintained" or "adequately reviewed" remain facts. What is the schedule for development, review, and completion leading to publication of this document? If there is no schedule, how can it serve as satisfying the requirement for anything at all? Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Thursday, 17 December 2009 02:48:30 UTC