RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay

Actually, in this case, I think I'd make it normative, or if necessary 
modify any prose to avoid inappropriate duplication.  If we can't keep 
this much in sync, we're not trying, and I think it's of great pedagogic 
value to have this right where new readers will see exactly what we mean. 
I can certainly live with an appendix, but suggest in-line.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
10/18/2002 02:03 PM

 
        To:     "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "XMLP Dist App" 
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        cc:     "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Jacek Kopecky" 
<jacek@systinet.com>, "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
        Subject:        RE: Proposal for new last call issue:  Some  unprocessed   headers  should 
stay



I agree that such a table would be a great addition to the spec.

From a purely editorial POW, I wonder whether a non-normative appendix
would be appropriate given that the exact rules are already elsewhere in
the spec. That way, we avoid the confusion of which version is "the one
that rules them all" :)

Henrik 

>Since this seem to be found of interest, here's a further update 
>with "mustUnderstand" added.

Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 14:53:16 UTC