W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Followup on the processor graph discussion of yesterday ( on ACTION-53 , related to ISSUE-67 )

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:40:02 +0000
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1296834002.12475.94.camel@ophelia2.g5n.co.uk>
On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 14:45 +0100, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Section 4.1 now says:
> ---------------------
> "The processor graph term is used to denote the collection of all
> informational, warning, and error triples that are generated by the
> RDFa Processor as a result of processing the document."
> ->
> "The processor graph term is used to denote the collection of all
> informational, warning, and error triples that may used by the RDFa
> Processor to <a href="#processor-status">report is status</a>."

Link text should be "report its status".

> Section 7.6
> -----------
> "The processor graph is designed as a mechanism to capture all
> informational, warning, and error messages as triples from the RDFa
> Processor. "
> ->
> "The processor graph is designed as an optional mechanism to capture
> all informational, warning, and error messages as triples from the
> RDFa Processor. "
> 
> If you agree with these changes I will commit the source and declare
> victory on that one! 

Yep, sounds good to me.

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Friday, 4 February 2011 15:40:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:50 UTC