- From: David Wood <dwood@softwarememetics.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 22:54:58 -0500
- To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On 4 Jan2006, at 15:07, Kendall Clark wrote: > 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? Yes, indeed. Thanks for your hard work and careful review. Regards, Dave
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2006 03:55:27 UTC