no need to track WG issues in SPARQL document

I just checked for news in the SPARQL draft
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/
and I see $Revision: 1.67 $ with the new name,
abstract and such. Good...

I suggest dropping the issues appendix. Feel free to
keep your own editor's TODO list there, but don't make it look
like a WG issues list.

The WG issues list is now
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues

Note that I named all the issues, somewhat arbitrarily.
And I merged a few since the ftf meeting (see changelog for details).
In the future, I'll try to solicit input from the WG
on issue names; I know they occasionally matter and they're
expensive to change.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E