- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:01:39 -0500
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Bjoern Hoehrmann commented on the unregistered N3 media type in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Jul/0043.html "please either change the referenced document to use a registered media type or remove the reference." I removed the reference while tidying references in 1.436 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/ I propose that this is a strictly editorial change; according to the the last call comment process we discussed 7 Jun http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/0411.html the chair confirms that changes are editorial, but I can't judge my own work, so I'd like a couple other eyeballs, please. In particular, I think our link to the XML 1.1 grammar notation was normative all along, but that's the sort of thing I want to confirm explicitly. Once it's confirmed that this is an editorial change, I'm willing to respond to Hoehrmann on behalf of the editors and ask him if he's satisfied (unless one of the editors would prefer to do it). I guess there's no straightforward way to isolate the test-manifest.n3 change from all the references changes, so they kinda go together; i.e. I'm proposing this as our response to these comment as well: missing references in appendix http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Jul/0037.html XML 1.1 EBNF normative http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Jul/0029.html I don't want to treat this one as editorial; I think we should do some test cases for it: RFC 3066 reference normative http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Jul/0030.html -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Sunday, 24 July 2005 01:01:46 UTC