- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:06:29 -0500
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 15:46 -0700, David Orchard wrote: > Right. Where do we go from here? You're not comfortable with the > current definition for reasons you've stated. It also sounds like we > don't have a counter-proposal, and further generating a counter proposal > could involve a huge amount of time in the way of research. > > Can we weaken the definition and effectively say it's language > dependent? > > "I1 is compatible with I2 in a language specific manner such that is not > generalizable." That's not a bad idea. I'm trying to remember if any of the more down-to-earth stuff in the strategies section depends on these definitions very strongly. I'll try to think it over. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Saturday, 25 August 2007 01:06:43 UTC