> The main theme of your response seems to be that most things
> are obvious for you and therefore no clarification or calling out
> is warranted.
I think you have to keep something in context....you're reporting this
literally months after the public review, and after several of us apparently
implemented this without confusion (or guessed correctly, whatever). I think
the reasonable response to that is "if it's not broken...". I definitely put
all of the XML comments in that category as they simply don't make any sense
to me.
But a couple of the parameter issues need to be cleaned up, and Jeff already
volunteered to reopen the spec and shepherd it back through the process, so
I think that's all that's needed.
> As far as I understand, there is no intent to publish any implementation
> guidelines - thus this material should go to the spec itself.
No, just a lack of volunteers to work on them, as has been the case now for
going on 3 years. But regardless, the issue isn't "should", it's whether
it's a "must" and how soon.
-- Scott
