[OK?] Re: [Fwd: SPARQL Protocol Review and Comments] from Kendall Clark on 2006-01-04 (public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org from January 2006)

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 15:07:17 -0500
To: David Wood <dwood@softwarememetics.com>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <758BED70-3426-488E-8DBA-07D258CB55C4@monkeyfist.com>

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?

Cheers,
Kendall

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