Re: Last call comment process

At 08:47 28/01/2003 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:

>On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 07:09, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> > Brian
> >
> > would you please walk me through what I am meant to do.
> >
> > Dan has made a comment on my text, you have assigned a number to it:
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#danc-02
> > and given it a name "goofy literals".
>
>Gee... I would hope this is a simple editorial tweak, not
>the sort of thing where the WG need be involved.

My bad.  I don't have a good feeling for where to draw the line between 
editors discretion and what should be brought back the WG.


>Nobody has to change any test cases or code over this;
>it's just a matter of how the text is written.

Is that a good rule of thumb;  If it is just a matter of clarifying the 
text to better express the intent of the WG, then editors have discretion?


>It's fine to be conservative about these things,
>but if it were me, this wouldn't warrant an issue.

Fine by me.  Sounds like I was being too heavy handed.

Brian