- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:59:46 +0000
- To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > I don't see how simply moving the URI of a test (consistently) voids the > approval, especially if the change is to the URI *only*. I think we can agree to differ here - I tend to agree with Chimezie and Dan disagrees - I don't think we need to resolve that. Chimezie, as test editor, needs to have naming conventions etc. that work for him. Once the test document (editor's draft) is adequately organized lets do a bulk approval of the tests in that document. I think the things we need are: a) a first publication of test WD (time critical) b) Chimezie to mandate how he wants the tests organized (if he needs to reorganize the current muddle) c) to organize the tests as such I don't think (a) need come after (b) and (c), but we might put a para in a WD to say that we are currently reorganizing the test area. > The only uncertainty *I* have is with regards to the value of including > the networked tests in the zip delivered with the test specification. > Probably a minor consideration, but I'm curious about other opinions on > this. I think they should be. Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2007 15:00:52 UTC