- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:19:33 +0100 (BST)
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Dave Beckett wrote: > On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 08:55 -0400, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 10:35 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote: > > ... > > > The DAWG discussed this and how about we add a new paragraph based on > > > the words you give above to the results spec section 4 XML Schemas: > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-XMLres-20050801/#schemas > > > > > > For XML 1.1 documents, the method described in > > > *Processing XML 1.1 documents with XML Schema 1.0 processors* > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xml11schema10-20050511/ > > > MAY be used. > > > > Thank you. > > > > > I'm wondering though, how making a REC-track doc point normatively > > > to a WG Note works? > > > > This depends on how comfortable the group feels about normatively > > referencing a document that did not follow the REC-track. Since the WG > > Note is not a REc, your paragraph itself could be informative, thus > > making the referencing to the WG Note informative. > > OK, so I'll propose to the WG that I add the words above as an > informative note in section 4 and then add a new informative reference > to the document to address your issue. Would that satisfy your comment? The working group agreed to this change and I will add it to the next draft of the sparql results WD. Thanks for you comment. Dave
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2005 15:19:42 UTC