Re: Comments on GRDDL W3C Working Draft 2 March 2007

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Dear Dave
> 
> this message is to update you as to the WG response to
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2007AprJun/0003
> 
> Our current understanding is that:
> - you are satisfied with the way we have addressed the whitespace comment.
> - there is on-going discussion concerning the namespace document, the WG
> response to your message is:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2007AprJun/0019
> copied from
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Apr/0218
> - and the other comments in your message are editorial in nature.
> 
> The editor accepted the action:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/04/25-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action06
> ACTION: DanC to address editorial comments by Beckett in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2007AprJun/0003
> 
> If you are already satisfied with this action as a response to the
> aspects of your message other than whitespace or the namespace document,
> please respond to indicate.
> 
> If you would prefer to wait to see how the editor addresses your
> comments, that would be very understandable, and we will update you when
> the changes are made.
> 
> thank you
> 
> Jeremy Carroll
> 
> 
> PS I am acting without explicit WG approval, to fulfil:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/04/25-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action08
> ACTION: JJC to see that the CR request gets to The Director
> hence, there is the possibility of formal correction to this response
> from the WG.

All the significant concerns are addressed and in a later email
I see the editorial ones have been made by Dan Connolly.

Thanks

Dave

Received on Friday, 27 April 2007 03:10:24 UTC