W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2002

Re: concept anchors - RE: Minutes: telecon 2002-11-15

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:57:50 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021118205409.032332d0@127.0.0.1>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "RDFCore Working Group" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

While I agree they are not always easy to use, I don't see how they are 
difficult to *maintain*.

I don't think we should *remove* them at this time, though I am happy to 
see additional named anchors added.  When we have confirmation that no 
other documents link to the auto-generated 'xtocid' anchors we can think 
about removing them.

#g
--

At 02:50 PM 11/18/02 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:


> > Item 18: Schedule
> >
> >       http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#microschedule
> >
> >    As per Eric's request, all editors to work from the PUBLISHED
> >    docuements (to ensure html tidyness is in place)
> >
> >    Links should be to the TR document, not the editors' working drafts.
> >
> >    If you create an anchor, don't remove it.
> >
> >    Pubrules citation requirements were discussed. [Scribe won't attempt
> >    to minute from the IRC as the trascript is somewhat sparse - can
> >    somone follow up to this with the rule regarding citation?]
> >
>
>
>I intend to remove all gensym anchors from concepts.
>They are like:
>    #xtocid4807
>and they are difficult to maintain.
>
>Jeremy

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 19:48:35 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:06 EDT