- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:06:21 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 2011-10-08, at 13:51, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > On 07/10/11 14:54, Steve Harris wrote: >> There's a response at >> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:JB-6 >> >> To help paragraph 2 of my response, I'm planning to add some text to >> the query doc (probably near the start of 17.4 Operator and Function >> Definitions) along the lines of: > >> “It should be notated that any function or operator that is specified >> to return an error under some conditions is a valid extension point. >> That is, any implementation my return a non-error value in these >> error cases, and still be compliant with this recommendation.” > > s/notated/noted/ > s/my/may/ > s/any/an/ (style) > s/compliant/conformant/ D'oh, and typing day. >> Any thoughts? > > I would add it in "17.6 Extensible Value Testing" and possibly put one sentence saying "see 17.6" in 17.4 Yep, that's a better fit. I've fixed the text and pushed to CVS as the first para in 17.6. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 10:06:48 UTC