Re: Proposal: change following to informative

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 4:00 PM, John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> The following are (I assert ;-) re-statements of requirements levied by
> base specs, rather than new requirements added by LDP.  Actually all 3
> editors agreed on this list after taking independent passes, so I'm making
> it a single proposal.
>

As I have regrets for next meeting and want to make sure that it is clear,
I +1 these as I have already reviewed them with John.

- Steve Speicher


>
> If you object (-1) to any of the listed sections being changed, please
> provide the specific list in your response and we'll simply treat those
> separately.
>
> If you do not object (+0 or +1), either save it for a WG poll on one of
> the next meetings or (if you're sending regrets for that meeting) email to
> get your poll vote in early.
>
> We'd still keep the text in LDP, just remove the 2119 styling, mark
> informative, and be careful to refer to the originating spec in each case.
>  In part, this will address some of Mark Baker's comments.
>
> 4.2.6 - http
> 4.2.7 - http
> 4.3.4 EXCEPT for final sentence ... TimBL's comments cover what's left
> (the final sentence), and that's a separate proposal for change (not yet
> queued)  - http
> 4.6.1 - http
> 4.6.2 - http
> 4.8.1 - http
>
> 5.2.2 - http
>
> 5.2.6 - rdf
>
> 5.2.7 - rdf (ONLY the portion after the comma; the first clause says
> normative)
>
> 5.2.9 the MAY >> can; already refers to WebArch
>
> 5.3.1 - rdf (ONLY sentence two - any subject)
>
> 5.4.2 - http
>
> 5.4.6 ONLY sentence two - http
>
> 5.4.10 - atompub
>
>  Best Regards, John
>
> Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages<http://w3.ibm.com/jct03019wt/bluepages/simpleSearch.wss?searchBy=Internet+address&location=All+locations&searchFor=johnarwe>
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
>
>