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

Re: (draft) SOTD for Sept 5th RDFCore WDs

From: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:26:10 -0400
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C7BD8EE5-DD59-11D7-BCA6-000A9582FD3A@w3.org>


On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 11:07  AM, Dan Brickley wrote:

> * Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2003-09-02 15:59+0100]
>> looks ok to me.
>>
>> I suggest that we particularly want to highlight i18n's xml lang/xml
>> literal issue and request feedback, say in both concepts and in 
>> syntax,
>> and in the announcement.
>
> Yes, at least in the documents. I didn't attempt this in the 
> boilerplate
> I drafted since it is intended to be mixed-in with per document text.

This boilerplate was carried over from LC2 stod and as Danbri mentioned 
and was intended to be generic across documents. The thought was that 
editors would include high level big general issues highlighted with a 
link to the more detailed changes section.

[[
@@ highlighted changes the editors might want to summarize per document 
here @@. Detailed changes from the previous 23 January 2003 working 
draft are described in the Changes section.
]]

I certainly was thinking the i18n's xml lang/xml literal issue and 
removal of social meaning section at the time I drafted the above.

>
>> Does it make sense for such highlighting to go in the status section?
>
> I think so.

At a high level, I agreed.

--
eric miller                              http://www.w3.org/people/em/
semantic web activity lead               http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
w3c world wide web consortium            http://www.w3.org/
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 11:30:02 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:59:53 EDT