Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Comments on NDR position papers

["Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>]

Makes sense to me!  Perhaps the current owners of all these position 
papers can have a look and report briefly tomorrow on what they 
recommend doing with the comments...

	Eve

Gregory, Arofan wrote:
> Eve:
> 
> Is discussing this in e-mail OK? (If not, please disregard the rest of
> this...)
> 
> I would say that doing formal dispositions for position papers is not
> necessary - they're only position papers! Let the comments be included in
> the discussion of the position, and dealt with informally as the position
> papoers are migrated into the spec.
> 
> Once we release a draft spec, I would say it was appropriate to have formal
> dispositions. The problem with comments is that often many of these are
> non-substantive copy-editing things, and to have to track these while
> arguing a position is simply too much overhead. We are going to completely
> re-write the position papers when they become part of the spec, so why
> bother? 
> 
> Easier just to consider the substantive ones informally.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Arofan

-- 
Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com