- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:02:26 +0000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: W3C public GLD WG WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>, GLD Chairs <team-gld-chairs@w3.org>
On 09/03/12 13:19, Sandro Hawke wrote: > On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 18:20 +0000, Dave Reynolds wrote: >> Sorry to have missed the call (I did say I was "at risk"). >> >> I see the following in the minutes: >> >> "PROPOSED: Publish Data Cube Vocabular Spec FPWD, after adding a >> reference to ISSUE-32 (worked out between lbermudez and the editors)" >> >> What's the reason for referencing ISSUE-32 specifically? >> >> I could see some value in an Editor's Note pointing that there are a >> number of logged issues that *may* be addressed in future versions. >> However, I didn't follow the rationale for treating ISSUE-32 differently >> from the others. > > Simply that Luis thought it was important to do so (and no one saw a > problem with doing so). > > I think it would be good practice, actually, the make sure every open > ISSUE is mentioned in some editor's note in the relevant document, > although maybe in a few cases there's no way to do that clearly. OK. I've added an appendix [1] to the document to give a summary of each of the raised ISSUES and link to the full ISSUE list entry. I've put what I hope is a suitable caveat that we're making no promises to address all of these. Let me know if this seems acceptable. Dave [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube/index.html#issues
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 13:03:08 UTC