W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > June 2008

Re: [Recipes] new editor's draft

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:00:13 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20080603105426.03b22998@127.0.0.1>
To: Jon Phipps <jphipps@madcreek.com>
Cc: "Ed Summers" <ehs@pobox.com>, "SWD Working SWD" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

At 03:10 PM 5/28/2008 -0400, Jon Phipps wrote:
>On May 28, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Ed Summers wrote:
>
>>
>>Nice work Jon ...
>
>You are too kind. Seriously.

He may be kind, but he's also very accurate :)

Since we expect this to be our final version, thanks, Jon and Ed,
for taking the extra time to make the examples consistent.

>>it looks like (unless I'm goofing something on this
>>end) that there are still a few remaining problems:

...

>Fixed! <sigh>

I've been looking around to see if I can see where all these
excellent fixes are appearing so that I might double-check
the end result.  Apologies if I've missed some message that
tells me where the up-to-the-minute bits might lie, but I've
been unable to find them.

>>Recipe 5.
>>
>>http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/recipes/examples-20080421/example5- content/2005-10-31-docs/index.html
>>lacks ID attributes for ClassA, ClassB, propA and propB.
>
>I don't think that there should _necessarily_ be ID attributes for  
>the classes and properties in the index.html file, which functions  
>simply as an "overview document".

I agree, for the purposes of recipe 5, that IDs for each class and
property in index.html are not necessary.  For pedagogical purposes
of this Note, I'd even say they would be confusing -- though in
actual practice I'd probably like to see them there "for completeness".

>Thanks for the continued careful checking,

+lots
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 15:15:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:53 UTC