Re:

On Thursday, November 23, 2006, 3:20:16 PM, Charles wrote:

CM> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:58:29 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile  
CM> <chaals@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:27:16 +0100, T.V Raman <raman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> I concurr with Steve, and strongly disagree with the later
>>> suggestion on this thread that two parallel versions of the
>>> charter be maintained with a pointer being passed around to the
>>> alternative --- I for one would not feel comfortable voting on
>>> either  version of any of the charters if that were the case.
>>
>> I agree with Raman that having made the proposals they should stand. I  
>> am disappointed that the feedback that various people including myself  
>> raised seemed to have been ignored in the proposal, but W3C is like  
>> that. I will make the same suggestions in my AC review, as significant  
>> change requests.

CM> Hmm. I don't know which charter drafts I was reading. Some of the most
CM> significant changes I requested most strongly were in fact made in the
CM> proposal.

I thought so, and was surprised when you mentioned they were 'ignored
as usual'. Glad that has been cleared up.



-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@xxxxxx
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG