- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:51:32 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org
I have lost track of whether I have formally accepted the WG response to my comment. If not, let this be it. I am happy that the WG is responding to my comment appropriately; whether normative or informative and details of labels etc. I am happy to leave to your discretion and expertise. Jeremy Dan Connolly wrote: > On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 15:55 -0500, Harry Halpin wrote: >> Jeremy, >> >> The final decision in DanC's hands, but we already decided as a WG >> not to use conformance labels. > > Er... my suggestion is to put it back in the WG's hands, but I suppose > it's good to know if Jeremy is OK with not adding a conformance > label... > >> However, we do want implementers to be >> aware of security issues. So, if that text was added to section 7 as >> informative text and we substituted the words "GRDDL-aware agent" for >> "GRDDL-aware processor", would you feel like your comment has been >> addressed? >
Received on Monday, 26 February 2007 15:52:14 UTC