[OK?] Re: [Fwd: SPARQL Protocol Review and Comments]

On Jan 4, 2006, at 3:01 PM, David Wood wrote:
> I gave some thought to adding some explanatory text to Section  
> 2.1.4, but gave up.  Instead, I believe that the current use of the  
> word 'should' correctly states the WG's position.

Have all of yr comments been addressed to yr satisfaction?


Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 20:08:01 UTC