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

RE: Syntax WD - thumbs down

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:22:21 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 13:43 31/10/2002 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>Brian has asked me to clarify what the minimum change would be to get me to
>drop opposition.
>In particular, he hypothesised a paragraph that clearly stated that sections
>4-9 took precendence over section 2, in the event of a conflict.
>This would just about suffice to turn my opposition into abstention - not
>that I cannot understand why the editor objects to using a single word like
>"informative" or "non-normative" in place of such a paragraph. (Grudging)

I'm interpretting "just about" as "" in the above sentence.  If that is not 
right and you want me to represent your views at the telecon, you'd better 
let me know.

>I reemphasize that a decision to retain section 2, in any form, should not
>be taken unless the WG is clear that the necessary rewrite for last call and
>recommendation is adequately resourced; and has sufficient bang for the

I would be willing to accept the syntax editor's assurance that he can get 
section 2 into shape for last call.  I'd also be willing to find time to 
assist Dave with the wordsmithing if that would be helpful, though there 
may be others who would be both willing and able to do a better job.  If 
Dave accepted that offer, I would not be seeking to add my name to the list 
of editors.

Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 09:19:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:01 UTC