W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: Last call comment process

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:32:55 -0600
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <1043778775.29626.148.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 11:27, Brian McBride wrote:
> 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.

Or maybe you do... danc-01 might turn out to be more significant
than I thought at first...

You certainly didn't do anything bad...

> >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?

That's a rule of thumb I use, yes. But you/we should also
consider that a spec could be technically/formally correct
but so confusing as to hamper deployment of the technology...
or that a commentor who could potentially cause
wide deployment of the spec might get discouraged
by dismissal of their comments as "merely editorial."

> >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.

Maybe, maybe not.

> Brian
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 13:33:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:03 UTC