- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:57:50 +0000
- 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 UTC