Re: oneOfDistinct, a proposal for 5.18

Jim Hendler wrote:

> If the WG indicates that they agree with Peter and/or prefer this decision,
> I will be willing to revisit our decision.  If not, then we can go to LC
> without the semantics document, and resolve this and release that document
> in LC form as soon thereafter as we can

If you're looking for support, than count me in as follows:
- I support Peter's objection (that last night's resolution lets "assertional 
content" creep into descriptions)
- even if the semantics document could be fixed, it would still be 
unattractive (Peter Crowther's points on this were well made)
- going to LC without the semantics document would be unacceptable in my 
opinion.

My first preference is Peter's proposal
and I would rather not have unique-names construction at all,
rather than going to LC without a semantics document.

Frank.
   ----

Received on Friday, 20 December 2002 17:11:05 UTC