- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:47:36 -0700
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
A basic requirement for human readable documentation appears in the use case but isn't in the list of requirements. If the group agrees, that can be added as a requirement. (It generally seems like a good idea, right?) kc On 8/31/18 8:16 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote: > I remain +0 for the protocol negotiation part via URL munging, and an > enthusiastic +1 for the requirement for human readable documentation. > > > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:26 PM Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) > <Nicholas.Car@csiro.au> wrote: > > Dear DWGX Conneg Subgroup, > > This email may appear twice due to a send issue at my end. Please > take this copy to be the bet one. > > We have a left-over action from our last meeting to consider > promoting the Use Case “Web browser navigation of profile > information” (https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/239) to the Plenary > group for voting on. > > Please could Conneg subgroup members reply to this with either +1, 0 > or -1 to indicate if this Use Case should be sent to Plenary? Votes > should be in before the Plenary on 2018-09-04 in order for it to be > considered there. > > Thanks, > > Nick > > > > -- > Rob Sanderson > Semantic Architect > The Getty Trust > Los Angeles, CA 90049 -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal) skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Friday, 31 August 2018 16:48:02 UTC