Re: CNEG subgroup - proposing Use Case (Issue 239) to Plenary

The purpose of bringing this Use Case through is to then generate a requirement, as per the general pattern of UC -> Req -> Req Response.

On 1/9/18, 2:49 am, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

    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 Saturday, 1 September 2018 00:53:41 UTC