Ivan, >This discussion is really useful for the general picture. But >let us not overadministrate ourself. Agree :) >The bug in this test is an absolute clear case >of misspelling, so to say, it is not _at all_ a technically >controversial case and I would not be particularly worried about >changing the test without further notice in that case. Agree, again :) >But the situation is not always that easy. My report on test #29: > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Aug/0033 .html > >_does_ require some more disciplined procedure indeed. Right. That's why I did not reply so far; that's why it is still unreviewed [1], and finally that's why we are going to (at least) review TC29-33 in the upcoming telecon - hopefully :) Cheers, Michael [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFaTC#Approval_2007-08-02 ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hausenblas, MSc. Institute of Information Systems & Information Management JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH http://www.joanneum.at/iis/ ----------------------------------------------------------Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 07:03:29 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:09 GMT