- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 19:58:17 -0500
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>, RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
David, you didn't get a response from me on this: > ISSUE-159 is almost satisfactory. I emailed Pat Hayes off list about this, and have not yet seen a response: > [[ > [Off list] > > Hi Pat, > > That looks good except that the font on the word "interpretation" is > wrong: it is not appearing in bold as other defined terms appear when > they are introduced. > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html#notation-and-terminology > > Could you please fix that so that I can send back my official response > saying that I am happy with this resolution? > > Thanks, > David > ]] because I never got that message :-). Now I have it, my response is as follows. The fonts are assigned by ReSpec depending upon the content markup. This is not marked as a definition. As the text states, all the definitions are given subsequent to this paragraph. There are no internal hyperlinks to this paragraph; all internal links from any use of "interpretation" would go to the appropriate definition of simple interpretation, RDF interpretation, etc.. If this were marked as a definition, then all these links would redirect to here rather than where they should redirect to. I am not sure if this is still an official correspondence, but as it is CCd to public-rdf-comments, let us treat it as one. Please reply to public-rdf-comments indicating whether you find this resolution of ISSUE-159, with my added explanation, above, acceptable. Pat ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred) phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 00:58:48 UTC