- 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
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 UTC