Fwd: list of potential 2.0 defects

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Aug/0010.html

I have documented there a collection of 5 potential WebCGM 2.0 errata.  As 
far as I'm aware, these include all potential 2.0 errata that have been

If you are aware of any additional ones, please reply to list.

Btw, this becomes a little awkward with two groups considering the topic at 
once.  The WebCGM TC and the WebCGM WG have equal stake and interest in the 
2.0 errata.  With the 1.0 errata, by contrast, it is clear that the WebCGM 
WG (formally) plays lead role and the TC is contributor (as 1.0 is only a 
W3C Recommendation, not an OASIS Standard.)

-Lofton.