- From: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 10:04:16 -0400
- To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFDEC2B7FF.D72BA1FB-ON85257CCF.004C5F76-85257CCF.004D4C25@us.ibm.com>
Like Sandro, my understanding is that (1) is what the spec requires, although (2) is permitted (explicitly via the "other triples" clause, implicitly via normative references). wrt striking the "other triples" clause, honestly it found it's way in there (as well as similar ones in other places) in part because we found implementers reading normative requirements as limiting, i.e. where we say "you must do Y" they read "...and MUST NOT do anything else". Hence I'm not crazy about removing it entirely, although it might be better placed in one of the "consequences of other specs" chapters. OTOH if the WG decided to remove such strictly superfluous phrases entirely, I would not -1 it either. "Normal" product devs do not live day to day in specification-land, especially nowadays, so I do have sympathy for the point of view that says at times we repeat things rather than relying on the dev "just trying to implement LDP" to exhaustively read and understand the full logical consequences of the transitive closure of all normative references. Many spec readers != spec authors. Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
Received on Monday, 5 May 2014 14:05:00 UTC