RE: Primer Review (persistence)

On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 14:23 +0100, Ian Davis wrote:
> Thanks for another good review.
> 
> Harry wrote:
> > I'd also *really really* like to have working sample 
> > "example" files with data and links to engines like SPARQL 
> > and GRDDL implementations which people can run "out of the 
> > box", which we don't for much of this tutorial. IMHO that's 
> > the main  distinction between the tutorial and the use-case 
> > document, so let's do it. Anyone up for helping? However, I 
> > won't block the release of this document as Working Draft 
> > even though the examples need more work.
> 
> Some of the HTML samples are linked in the document. I guess to go
> further and link to live services we have to make sure the relevant
> SPARQL and GRDDL services have to be at least as persistent as the
> primer document.

Oops; I missed that bit about persistence by reading too quickly.

We aren't 100% required to ensure persistence of the things we link to.
Persistence is always nice, I think instant gratification trumps
it in the case of a primer.

While we do everything we can to make sure links *to* W3C
tech reports never go bad, it's acceptable, though regrettable,
that links *from* W3C tech reports rot over time. The policy is
that at the time of publication...

"The document MUST NOT have any broken internal links or broken links to
other resources at w3.org. The document SHOULD NOT have any other broken
links."
 -- http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?uimode=filter&uri=


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2006 13:50:17 UTC