W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > July 2003

Re: new reply to comments by Bijan Parsia

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:55:43 +0100
Message-ID: <3F15BBCF.6040909@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org

small comment ...

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>>>>2) Completely Editorial: I would like the normative version of the
>>>>document to be a single HTML file. I know, off hand, of no other (at
>>>>least modern) W3C recommendation that is split up merely for
>>>>navigational purposes. It's inconvenient, it's inconsistent even with
>>>>the other OWL specs, and annoying, especially for offline reading.
>>>>
>>>I agree somewhat, but do find the separated version to be helpful
>>>sometimes.  I was asked to make the switch from a single to a compound
>>>document, and I'm not particularly interested in switching back.
>>>
>>Er...but none of the other documents, afaik, either in webont or 
>>rdfcore are compound. Few if any, again afaik, modern W3C recs are 
>>compound. I would have thought that that would be determinative :)
>>
>>Not a biggy, but it does annoy me each and every time. And I often 
>>forget that it's compound and thus load up only the first page and find 
>>myself off line with not what I wanted. Oh well. Bookmarking the single 
>>file will work. But I predict other people's annoyance.
>>[snip]
>>
> 
> No change is likely to be made here.
> 



OWL Test is a compound doc, and so far I have only had positive feedback on 
that change.

Weakly suggest adding

"OWL Test Cases is also a compound document."

(or not)

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 16:56:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT