- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 23:05:18 +0100
- To: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
What was decided was that there would be a common base name. So something like Foo-simple and Foo-Full, or Foo and Foo-Full, or Foo-lite and Foo etc. HTH Phil On 04/04/2017 22:34, Raphaël Troncy wrote: >> I think that's a little unfair, Raphaël. The decision to have a common >> base name was discussed at length at the F2F, during the session set >> aside for SSN. What that common base name is, and what the prefixes >> might be, are up for discussion - which is what this thread is about. >> Kerry is trying to offer a straightforward choice but at this stage, the >> door is open to alternative suffixes. > > I originally understood that only the SSN task members did vote during > the F2F meeting, my mistake if this was not the case. > > Room is open for alternative suffixes or separators, but the window is > closed regarding the fact that the core module and the extended must be > sub-string, correct? > > Raphaël > -- Phil Archer Data Strategist, W3C http://www.w3.org/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2017 22:05:21 UTC