W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > November 2016

Re: URGENT: bodyValue

From: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:41:45 -0600
Message-ID: <CAJdbnOAABb63S=SJ++iNh0+BY+53tveL_0vYVepcGSB68NJOHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: "Liam R. E. Quin" <liam@w3.org>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Web Annotation <public-annotation@w3.org>
wait wait wait....

Liam said "If it is optional, isn't one implementation enough?"

Umm.... maybe?  Can someone check on that?

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> Liam,
>
> we do plan to publish a revised CR...
>
> Ivan
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman
> +31 641044153
>
> (Written on my mobile. Excuses for brevity and frequent misspellings...)
>
>
>
> > On 11 Nov 2016, at 20:48, Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 10:02 -0800, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> >> One of our exit criteria is:
> >>
> >>     The bodyValue property of an Annotation.
> >>
> >> However according to the report (
> >> http://td.spec-ops.io/test-results/annotation-model/all.html), we
> >> have only
> >> one implementation of bodyValue (EF).  It's 1:4 in the annotation
> >> optionals
> >> section.
> >>
> >> I don't believe we'll get a second implementation of it, so do we:
> >>
> >> * Just remove the exit criterion, as it's an optional feature anyway
> >
> > That sounds like a substantive change, so you could publish a new LCCR.
> >
> > But, if it's an optional feature, isn't one implementation enough?
> >
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Received on Friday, 11 November 2016 20:42:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:50 UTC