Re: Part 2 (was Re: Working through DUV part 1)

This note can be removed.

Thanks,

Eric S

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 14, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> And is this Note still relevant?
> 
> "Based on discussions held June-August the model has been modified significantly The non-normative text below needs updating once general agreement is reached on the DUV model."
> 
> 
> 
>> On 14/01/2016 20:10, Phil Archer wrote:
>> Eric, Sumit, Berna,
>> 
>> I have an idea this won't be the only question I have for you about DUV
>> but I'm working through it and I'll jot down some observations and
>> questions as I go.
>> 
>> First of all, I've fixed the ReSpec errors so my copy is now OK on that
>> score [1].
>> 
>> Secondly, in the Status section, the text says "This is a draft document
>> which may be merged into another document or eventually make its way
>> into being a standalone Working Draft." is that still true? I may be
>> wrong but my impression is that the WG finds it easier to keep DUV and
>> DQV separate.
>> 
>> The Status section needs to have at least one custom paragraph, i.e.
>> some indication of what *this* version is about, it's stability etc.
>> *If* the following is accurate, then something like:
>> 
>> "This is the second iteration of the vocabulary, developed following
>> extensive consultation among and outside the working group who now
>> regard it as nearing completion. Comment and feedback is sought before
>> the next iteration which is likely to be the final version for the
>> foreseeable future."
>> 
>> would be appropriate.
>> 
>> I'm hoping to add links to your SVG next...
>> 
>> Phil
>> 
>> [1] http://philarcher1.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
> 
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1

Received on Friday, 15 January 2016 04:08:07 UTC