- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 09:13:02 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- CC: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
I prefer the latest as well, and am willing to wager that no one's going to be concerned over the process looseness here. :-) Lee On 9/8/2011 9:04 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > Axel, > > The WG voted to publish a particular version of the document (the > json-results-lc.html snapshot) so in theory that is the one that should > be published. But the changes are merely editorial (I promise) and > everything should be noted in the CVS log. > > So I don't mind which version is published - I slightly prefer the > latest but this is a little bit non-process. > > Andy > > On 08/09/11 05:51, Axel Polleres wrote: >> Hi Andy, >> >> I am looking into this at the moment, the minor editorial changes on the > json-result format from > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011JulSep/0215.html >> already incorporated in > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/json-results/json-results.xml shall > go on board, I assume, yes?) >> >> cheers, >> Axel >> >> On 6 Sep 2011, at 16:10, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >>> Any news on the publishing process? >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2011 13:13:33 UTC