Re: while we are rechartering.... (csv)

> I think a Note later in our process may be doable, but I can't support a 
Rec track spec.

+1

Axel
------Original Message------
From: Lee Feigenbaum
To: Andy Seaborne
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Subject: Re: while we are rechartering.... (csv)
Sent: 1 Jun 2011 17:00

On 6/1/2011 10:45 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
> On 01/06/11 14:59, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>> We implement this in Anzo. It's very useful.
>>
>> But, we don't have the bandwidth to produce a new recommendation. I
>> can't in good conscience support this work at this time.
>>
>> Lee
>
> I'll do it.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/csv-tsv-results/results-csv-tsv.html

>
> We can at least do a NOTE but for this, given deployed experience, the
> additional REC cost is lower than it might otherwise be. Testing is one
> such cost but we have to do JSON results testing so adding a parallel
> .csv and .tsv versions would be enough and there are already tools to
> produce the formats.

I don't agree that cost is lower for these reasons -- we would need to 
look at deployed experience and make decisions over any divergent 
points. Even if these are small, easily resolved decisions, they cost us 
time that we do not have right now.

We still have test suites and implementation reports to build, not to 
mention last call comments to respond to.

I think a Note later in our process may be doable, but I can't support a 
Rec track spec.

Lee

>
> There is no need for content type registration if we go with existing
> content types. There are text/csv and text/tab-separated-values.
>
> :-)
>
> Andy
>
>

Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 05:39:40 UTC