Re: review of json-ld-syntax

On 08/03/13 20:22, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>>> On 08/03/13 18:19, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>>> Most of your feedback has been addressed. The rest needs to be
>> further
>>> discussed. I also posted a number of proposal to the issue on GitHub
>> [1].
>>> Feel free to comment there.
>>
>> Last Call is a important step in the process where the technical works
>> ends and community feedback is important. This is a working group
>> review and we want to maximise WG member engagement.
>
> Sure. But you take this a bit out of context. This was part of a mail were I
> reported how two specific comments have been addressed. There was another
> long mail I sent out last night explaining all the other changes I made and
> a mail extracting the things that haven't been addressed yet and that need
> to be further discussed.

I think that email was the way to go but when you say you've gone back 
to using github and asked for comments there.  I felt that we need to be 
clear as to the process we are following, and not have two.

Please look at this from outside:

[[
There's one feature missing from the current syntax spec, @reverse. I'll
notify you when I've added that section so that you can review that part as
well.
]]

Normalization - issue 1
"The algorithm below is obsolete."

does make it very hard for someone to find out what is going on and to 
put the pieces together.

> I'm fine with that. Even though I find W3C's issue tracker much less usable
> than GitHub's.

I agree on usability but that's not the point here.

> Thanks for bringing this up. Better to sort these things out now rather than
> later.

We'll get there.

>
>
> Cheers,
> Markus


	Andy

Received on Friday, 8 March 2013 20:59:58 UTC