Re: Publication Request, 1 ordinary WD

Done. Pls let me know if there are any probs, Denis.

Thanks

Phil.

On 11/01/2016 08:08, Phil Archer wrote:
> Ah-ha! Well spotted, yes of course. I'll let you know when it's done.
>
>
>> Hi Phil,
>>
>> I uploaded the 'images' directory. However, there's still a broken link:
>> [[
>> Line: 41
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-dwbp-20160112/diff-dwbp-20160112.html
>>       Status: 404 Not Found
>> ]]
>>
>> Can you please add the missing diff file?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Denis
>>
>> On 01/10/2016 09:29 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
>>> This is a publication request for an ordinary working draft.
>>>
>>> Proposed publication date: Tuesday 12 January 2016
>>>
>>> Data on the Web Best Practices
>>> ==============================
>>>
>>> Document URI
>>> ============
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-dwbp-20160112/
>>>
>>> Please note that this is a near clone of the document published on 17
>>> December. Notes on that publication request therefore apply here [1].
>>> The reason for publication is the addition of an editors' note which is
>>> highlighted in the status section and the change log.
>>>
>>> *However* for reasons I do not understand, there's a problem with the
>>> images sub directory. I've uploaded it along with everything else, done
>>> the CVS commit - but it doesn't seem to have registered. So my CVS
>>> client and the server disagree on what is on the server. I am travelling
>>> between now and Tuesday so may have limited connectivity. To save time,
>>> the directory and its contents at /TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20151217/images can
>>> be cloned to create http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-dwbp-20160112/images.
>>>
>>> Homepage news
>>> =============
>>>
>>> <p>The <a href="/2013/dwbp/"Data on the Web Best Practices Working
>>> Group</a> has updated its <a href="/TR/2016/WD-dwbp-20160112/">Best
>>> Practices document</a>. This publication is designed to encourage and
>>> facilitate a greater sharing of data across the Web with greater
>>> consistency and therefore greater trust. What should publishers do? What
>>> metadata is essential? How can publishers encourage the maximum reuse of
>>> their data?</p>
>>> <p>The document published today is identical to that published on 17
>>> December 2015 except that it draws attention to the instability of one
>>> best practice in particular. The Working Group is therefore most keen to
>>> receive feedback on that issue.</p>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Dec/0115.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Monday, 11 January 2016 09:01:23 UTC