On 2002-03-26 11:51 AM, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > The security considerations section looks a bit risky and imprecise; a flag > red enough to attract attention, but having no answers. Have a wording suggestion? > [[The rdf:ID and rdf:about attributes can be used to define fragments in an > RDF document.]] > > Is that true? Hmmm, we said rdf:ID="foo" was equivalent to > rdf:about="#foo". Does rdf:ID actually define a fragment in the > document? Did we mean that to happen with rdf:about too? That seemed to be the intention of the older spec, and is certainly what our fragments argument is based on. > o an overview of the ietf process, preferably from someone who has done > this before. Are we cooked to start this? Perhaps Graham can provide this, I've not published an RFC with it before. Vaguely it goes something like this: 1. Publish an Internet-Draft 2. If comments, fix them and go back to step 1 3. Get approval from the IESG/Regional Coordinator 4. Have the RFC Editor publish it. > o Your current draft copied to an archive That was the intent in including it in my last message. > and review by at least two members of the WG. An older draft has been reviewed by Graham and DaveB, this one incorporates the fixes they suggested. > If we can get volunteers asap, I can put it on the > agenda for approval this Friday. Thanks. -- [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 13:42:36 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:22 EDT