>To John's point, short isn't actually good, because it's important to
>document the context--
No, really, short is essential. I'm happy to add the context once we
have a concise statement of what the problem is.
> But we tried to keep the actual
>problem statement short and pithy; if you really think it's too long,
>perhaps you could suggest shorter wordings that still capture the actual
Ah. See previous message for some examples. In neither of the
documents can I tell whether dealing with the toxic waste names is
supposed to be in or out of scope.
DNSOP mailing list