- From: Mike Cowlishaw <mfcowli@attglobal.net>
- Date: 24 Mar 2004 07:24:39 -0700
- To: <w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org>
I agree that RQ-31 will naturally absorb the earlier two -- however, the need for the first two (and the original postings for them) was not included in the third as the other two were already on record. Hence if the group closed the first two, the rationale for them could be interpreted as being rejected/discounted. I'd suggest keeping all three on the books in some way that makes it clear they are part of the same requirement. The alternative would be to try and merge them into a new Requirement document that would seem to be unnecessary paperwork :-). Mike Cowlishaw
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2004 09:24:20 UTC