On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:50:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think we need to enumerate some goals for this proposed
> change. Here is a start:
>
> - Minimal disruption for current packages. The impact should be
>measured by numbers of packages impacted
> At this point, I would say
On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> - Ability to recognize and render the following logical entities, in
>>decreasing order of importance:
>>+ unordered lists
>>+ ordered lists
>
> really needed?
I would think these are the guts of this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> - Ability to recognize and render the following logical entities, in
>decreasing order of importance:
>+ unordered lists
>+ ordered lists
really needed?
>+ emphasis
>+ strong emphasis
>+ definition l
Hi,
I think we need to enumerate some goals for this proposed
change. Here is a start:
- Minimal disruption for current packages. The impact should be
measured by numbers of packages impacted
+ Any specification of which of *, +, - to use as th first level item
will impact mo
On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 15 avril 2009 à 23:05 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> So, no, policy does not just document current practice. Policy
>> tries to document what is right.
>
> I think it should be both. When we do things right, they should be
>
Le mercredi 15 avril 2009 à 23:05 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> So, no, policy does not just document current practice. Policy
> tries to document what is right.
I think it should be both. When we do things right, they should be
specified in the Policy, and there’s no point specifyi
6 matches
Mail list logo
