- From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 07:13:02 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
Is this in your charter, that you have to b backward-compatible? Being based on a deliverable doesn't necessarily mean that you have to keep all URIs. It's a CG deliverable, things can change (unless you would have a very wide base of stable implementations). Don't take me wrong, I understand if you end up keeping the old URIs. After all I was once in a WG (SKOS) that kept old URIs even if all of us didn't like them. But that was after a long discussion. I'm just insisting because I feel that the arguments raised are not super-strong. It's maybe a matter of documentation, as you say. But as a stubborn reviewer now having discussed this with you for quite a while, I have to check all the discussions have been had. On 19/06/17 03:08, Renato Iannella wrote: > (Wasn't the best documented discussion ;-) > See "benws: having 2 URIs for the same property?" > > The point was that the URIs are not broken. > > Stuff has been added/deprecated, but exisiting stuff remains unchanged. > > Our work is based on exisiting deliverables, and not a new spec. > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/165#issuecomment-309316035>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAnpra0OCezsqksxJAPILS73L7V4YYjMks5sFcn8gaJpZM4NNsJd>. > -- GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/165#issuecomment-309357592 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 19 June 2017 07:13:08 UTC