- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:03:17 -0400
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
> From: Dan Connolly > [ . . . ] > I put something like that in the status section. > > [[ > GRDDL is intended to contribute to addressing Web Architecture issues > such as RDFinXHTML-35, namespaceDocument-8, and > xmlFunctions-34 as well > as issues postponed by the RDF Core working group such as > rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf and faq-html-compliance. In particular, > the GRDDL Working Group has postponed issue-faithful-infoset, and > anticipates that the resolution of TAG issue xmlFunctions-34 will > provide further clarification and guidance. > ]] > -- http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec 1.272 This looks harmless, but I don't think it is enough by itself. I think it is important to mention it in the body also, as I explain below. > [ . . . ] > References to the Working Group, W3C process, and that sort of thing > are fine in the status section, but I don't think they have any > place in the body of the spec. Please *do* mention TAG issue xmlFunctions-34 in the body, because that makes it much clearer to the reader what questions we are hoping the resolution of that TAG issue will provide "clarification and guidance" about. I think it is far more important to be clear than to avoid mentioning it just for the sake of not looking odd. David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 18:03:42 UTC