W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Publications ready to go (almost)

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 12:13:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CABt65OdjGYHVSv=tLAsKGJbrgi4s4zo5nq6DEpVzeBpXgc+fGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 5 January 2012 04:03, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:
> Here's how far I got checking the documents in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/pub/20120102/ according to http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Pub-Process
> Unfortunately, I couldn't delete the folders WD-sparql11-update-20120102/ ,  WD-sparql11-query-201120105/ and WD-sparql11-entailment-20120102/
> (the usual problem about CVS not allowing to move folders... maybe it would be worthwhile if W3C switched to SVN or something else, but well)
> Anyways, please just consider the following folders for copying to TR space:
>   http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/pub/20120102/WD-sparql11-query-20120105/

Hm, when I look at the CVS all seems in order apart from the fact that
the main order in pub is still called 20120102 instead of 20120105.

> Here the details where we stand:
> 3) Entailment:
>  http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/pub/20120102/WD-sparql11-entailment-20120105/
>    ... checked and ready to copy to TR from my side (one broken link, to the document to be published itself, should be ok)
>  Notes:
>   I added the list of SPARQL documents, as in Update and Query and the same uniform text for the status section (Birte, you may want to propagate that back to the xml)

They were in the introduction. I coomented this section out in the
intro and aligned the xmlspec.xml with the html version.


> p.s.: @Paul one question (@Birte, the same applies to Entailment):
> I had some confusion with a link to the local.css files in Update, I realized that the local.css there wasn't necessary,
> so I removed the import directive in the final html. That seems to stem from shared/xmlspec.xsl and I am not 100% clear whether
> we need it (Isn't the shared/local.css enough?), so I left it in at shared/xmlspec.xsl.

I am also not sure. I usually don't touch the files other than my
xmlspec.xml. I am not sure whether others need it, but in my case the
local.css is empty and I don't need it. I think I had problems as
well, when I tried once to get rid of it.



Jun. Prof. Dr. Birte Glimm            Tel.:    +49 731 50 24125
Inst. of Artificial Intelligence         Secr:  +49 731 50 24258
University of Ulm                         Fax:   +49 731 50 24188
D-89069 Ulm                               birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 11:16:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:10 UTC