Subject: RE: Issue 105 (was "Spec updates -- spell-checked this time")

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:41:03 -0700

I like your version better.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 2:38 PM
To: Noveck, Dave
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: Issue 105 (was "Spec updates -- spell-checked this time") 

>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Noveck <Noveck> writes:

    Dave> The problem with your formulation is that it suggest that
    Dave> you always have to do that close before returning the
    Dave> delegation.  However, you don't do that, if the file is not
    Dave> in fact closed when the delegation is returned.  

Good point.

    Dave> So about adding parenthetically "(when applicable)" to the
    Dave> end of your sentence.

I'd rather put it after "including" (i.e., "...is returned, including
(when applicable) the close..."), but at the end of the sentence is
okay, too.

Your response just went to me.  How do you want to feed this
discussion back to the WG and Spencer?

mike