W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > March 2012

Re: W3C GLD WG Thur 8-Mar-2012

From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:02:26 +0000
Message-ID: <4F61E862.1060802@gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: W3C public GLD WG WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>, GLD Chairs <team-gld-chairs@w3.org>
On 09/03/12 13:19, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 18:20 +0000, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>> Sorry to have missed the call (I did say I was "at risk").
>> I see the following in the minutes:
>> "PROPOSED: Publish Data Cube Vocabular Spec FPWD, after adding a
>> reference to ISSUE-32 (worked out between lbermudez and the editors)"
>> What's the reason for referencing ISSUE-32 specifically?
>> I could see some value in an Editor's Note pointing that there are a
>> number of logged issues that *may* be addressed in future versions.
>> However, I didn't follow the rationale for treating ISSUE-32 differently
>> from the others.
> Simply that Luis thought it was important to do so (and no one saw a
> problem with doing so).
> I think it would be good practice, actually, the make sure every open
> ISSUE is mentioned in some editor's note in the relevant document,
> although maybe in a few cases there's no way to do that clearly.


I've added an appendix [1] to the document to give a summary of each of 
the raised ISSUES and link to the full ISSUE list entry. I've put what I 
hope is a suitable caveat that we're making no promises to address all 
of these.

Let me know if this seems acceptable.


[1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube/index.html#issues
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 13:03:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:35 UTC