- From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 05:41:12 -0800
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Cc: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, "Purohit, Sumit" <Sumit.Purohit@pnnl.gov>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMFz4jhRc9ftrphrk2Qe=EEP4X-GJivCV_ZqFQbuT7eXZJ6qug@mail.gmail.com>
Thank you Phil! I'll be busy today adding the last changes based on the discussions with weekend, I'll let you know when the document is officially frozen which will be late today for me. Eric S On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: > 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 13:41:48 UTC