On 3-Jun-07, at 10:46 AM, Recordon, David wrote:

> I thought at IIW we agreed that if we could come to quick consensus  
> on a
> way to resolve the problem it would be a part of 2.0, otherwise it  
> would
> not...

That is what we agreed to in Josh's meeting. Then we had a meeting  
the next day and we had consensus from a pretty good sized group that  
included ALL the spec authors.

> As concerns with the fragment proposal have been raised, which had the
> most agreement at IIW, it seems we no longer have consensus.  As  
> seen in
> this thread, there are a wide variety of opinions as to how to resolve
> this concern.  I thus think merely picking one for the sake of putting
> something into 2.0 would be misguided.

I'm not clear what the issues with the fragment are. Josh's issue  
does not make sense as the user does not really know they have a  
fragment in their identifier.

-- Dick
specs mailing list

Reply via email to