- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 10:32:15 +0000
- To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, "Purohit, Sumit" <Sumit.Purohit@pnnl.gov>
- Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Eric, I've merged the changes I made to the local biblio that was causing the reSpec errors, and updated the status of the document section as discussed. Phil On 15/01/2016 13:05, Phil Archer wrote: > Morning Eric, > > I've created a Pull Request that includes the fixes mentioned yesterday. > > We have a problem though I'm afraid. I looked at the SVG to see if I can > make it clickable and, in the process, found that it uses some advanced > features of SVG that are not supported by some browsers that we need to > care about, at least a little, by which I mean IE11. So we need a new > version of the diagram. I can create it (it's a bit of Friday coding for > me) and I can do it in time for a Tuesday publication but I won't have > it done before today's call. > > Cheers > > Phil > > > > > On 14/01/2016 20:23, Phil Archer 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 Monday, 18 January 2016 10:32:33 UTC