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

Re: URGENT: bodyValue

From: KANZAKI Masahide <mkanzaki@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 10:31:54 +0900
Message-ID: <CAHQ1n3DtZ4q=XRvw0+Z9BY_PRoT3_ty=OAOaHvQcu9cBBFaW5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>, "Liam R. E. Quin" <liam@w3.org>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Web Annotation <public-annotation@w3.org>
Hello,

My Image Annotator[1] uses bodyValue. Though it is not a complete
implementation of Web Annotations, would it help if I submit a report
this week end ?

I have no experience to test and write an implementation report. If
you think it helps, tell me what is the minimum requirement as a
report.

regards,

[1] http://www.kanzaki.com/works/2016/pub/image-annotator

2016-11-12 5:51 GMT+09:00 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
> This isn't our documented exit criteria:-(
>
> Ivan
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman
> +31 641044153
>
> (Written on my mobile. Excuses for brevity and frequent misspellings...)
>
>
>
> On 11 Nov 2016, at 21:41, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> wrote:
>
> 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



-- 
@prefix : <http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/sig#> . <> :from [:name
"KANZAKI Masahide"; :nick "masaka"; :email "mkanzaki@gmail.com"].
Received on Saturday, 12 November 2016 01:32:28 UTC

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