Re: RDF namespace document example in spec or primer or both? [was: spec#issue-...]

I am not so sure that it needs to move. I would like to hear from the masses.
The Primer has already been released, so there is no moving anything until
the next public release. I think that it does not hurt a technical spec to have
small examples in them. Larger examples and explanations belong in a primer.

At 03:13 PM 10/20/2006 +0100, Ian Davis wrote:

>On 20/10/2006 14:55, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 22:51 -0400, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
>>[...]
>>>Additional observations for current spec draft:
>>>
>>>I would move 'Using GRDDL with an RDF Namespace document' to the primer 
>>>as suggested.
>>Ah... that's feedback on _this_ round of publication.
>>I'd like to hear from one or two other WG members before I make
>>up my mind on this. Any opinions? Maybe keep it for now and
>>strike it after Ian has a chance to work it into the primer?
>
>I agree it should be in the primer but I won't have time to do that before 
>the target spec pub date. I also don't want to be on the critical path. 
>Can you alter the text to say something more direct such as "This section 
>will be moved to the primer in the next version"?
>
>Ian
>--
>http://purl.org/NET/iand
>Blogging at... http://iandavis.com/blog
>Working on... http://directory.talis.com/