Fw: The Case for EML

[John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>]

Paul

 

Thanks for the comments and I have no problems with any of them.  Unless others have any other comments I'm happy to agree this version on the conference call next week. 

 

The questions about including a reference to IEEE and Schematron can be picked up on the call.
 

Regards
John
M. +44 (0)7976 157745

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Paul Spencer <paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk>
To: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 January, 2007 11:20:50 AM
Subject: The Case for EML

John,

I attach the document with suggested revisions in the text. I used "track
changes", so you should be able to see them easily.

This looks a really good document now. I very much liked the overview,
especially its emphasis on trust.

Most of my changes are editorial. In particular, I have tried to firm up
points that have some text such as "and many others" and "it is recognised
that" that made things look a bit woolly.

Should we mention IEEE P1622?

Schematron is now an ISO standard. Perhaps we should change the reference
for EML v5. One for the conference call.



Regards

Paul Spencer
Director
Boynings Consulting Ltd
http://boynings.co.uk

---

All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of unwanted email come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.

Case for EML-pds comments.doc