- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:19:55 -0700
- To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <reagle@w3.org>
- Cc: "Hoelzing, Gerd" <gerd.hoelzing@sap.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I agree that this is largely an editorial issue but would note that we don't currently use shortnames like "next", "ultimate receiver" etc. We only refer to the role using the URI. I tend to prefer using the URI and not introduce shortnames in any formal manner. Henrik Frystyk Nielsen mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com >(left xmlpComments off, as we don't usually use it for discussion) > >I think Joseph's position is clear now. I don't feel strongly >one way or >the other: I think the spec is OK as it stands, but (other than some >slight concern about adding to the length a bit) I have no >real problem >with pulling together the definitions as Joseph suggests. >This does seem >to me to be a question on which the WG should take a stand (as >opposed to >us editors proceeding), particularly since I think it >represents at least >a bit of a change to a resolution earlier agreed to. > >So, should we suggest that Joseph's proposal be put before the >WG? If so, >I expect to be more or less neutral, but would strongly argue that the >editors should have some license to revise the details to >improve the flow >of the resulting text. Thanks.
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 16:20:33 UTC