- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:01:25 -0500
- To: Howard Katz <howardk@fatdog.com>
- Cc: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Mon, 2004-06-28 at 18:32, Howard Katz wrote: [...] > I've done up my own very quick checklist against the UC&R doc with some > pointers into relevant sections of my proposal. I'm thinking it would feel > just a bit weird to post that myself tho, and I can't find any online Emily > Post pointers as to how language-proposer-nubies are supposed to behave in > situations like this. Anybody got a clue? I see 2 choices: (1) send your eval to one or two or a few WG members, and ask them if one or more of them will look it over, salt to taste, and send it (acknowledging your input; no reason to outright lie here). (2) send it yourself; like candidate requirements and such, the chair isn't likely to pay it much attention unless/until somebody else in the WG pays attention to it, but I won't count it against you in any way. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2004 10:01:52 UTC