W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > September 2003

Re: Comments for OWL Candidate Recommendation

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:51:33 +0300
To: lesch@w3.org
Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <200309221751.33937.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


I also s/working drafts/Working Drafts/

all these are done, see editors draft
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/
dated 22nd September.

[[
Test Cases [5]
s/web/Web/
s/web-site/Web site/
s/working group/Working Group/
s/favourable/favorable/
s/members of this group working group/participants in this Working Group/
]]


A question, I saw you commented on the compound document structure of OWL 
Semantics & Abstract Syntax. [S&AS] Is the one I've used OK for OWL Test 
Cases.

For many earlier drafts , not having a compound document was perceived as a 
problem. The current solution involves generating the three single document 
versions M.html L.html and XXL.html and then xslt-ing the (informative) 
XXL.html version with the script below to make the normative compound 
document.
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/multipart.xsl

However, I didn't find any guidance as to W3C policy for such things, and 
basically just copied S&AS and some other TR but I forget which.

I would be happy to entertain changes to the xslt, less happy with suggestions 
that could not easily be addressed that way.

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 22 September 2003 11:52:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:29 GMT