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

Re: DisCo question

From: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:18:54 +0100
To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
Cc: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, public-swd-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20081014111854.GD6829@skiathos>

Hi Ben, Ralph,

I'm happy to use the ACTION annotations, but it seems a bit redundant
if we have a CHANGE-TYPE annotation and a RESOLUTION annotation. I
also think the word "Reject" sounds, well, a bit rude. Is the ACTION
annotation strictly necessary?

Al.

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 07:54:30AM -0400, Ralph R. Swick wrote:
> At 08:29 PM 10/9/2008 -0700, Ben Adida wrote:
> >the way I interpreted it
> >is as follows: if the WG decides that the comment is valid and requires
> >some action, then Accept, otherwise Reject.
> 
> I would interpret these two terms as
> 
>   Accept -- a change was suggested and the Group agrees to make
>   some (not necessarily the same) change.
> 
>   Reject - a change was suggested and the Group declines to do so.
> 
> Some comments may not request changes but only express
> support or ask for clarification.  We want to include these in
> our Disposition of Comments report as further evidence that
> the spec has been reviewed. Clearly we don't Reject these :)
> (And they're probably CHANGE-TYPE: None)
> 

-- 
Alistair Miles
Senior Computing Officer
Image Bioinformatics Research Group
Department of Zoology
The Tinbergen Building
University of Oxford
South Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3PS
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
Email: alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2008 11:19:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 14 October 2008 11:19:34 GMT