>>"CMC" == C M Connelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CMC> Given that statement, if there aren't any other documents that
CMC> fall into this class, then perhaps the amendment should only say
CMC> ``Foundation Document'' or, even better, simply specify the Social
CMC> Contract/DFSG instead of implying the existence of a class of
CMC> documents.
Preparing for the future here: we may deem some other document
to be a foundation document in the future; and it would be nice if we
already had a list, and only needed to modify that list to add a new
document to that class.
I don't think creating this class of dc=ocuments, though we
have only a few that fit, is a big deal.
As to the social contract/dfsg issue; I think that arguably
they can be deemed to be separate documents, perchance living in the
same file by happenstance; in most correspindence since we have
refeerred to them individually.
manoj
--
The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it....I can
resist everything but temptation. -- Oscar Wilde
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
