- From: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
- Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 01:23:11 +0000
- To: <fd@w3.org>, <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
- CC: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Thanks Francois - Yes, these matters were addressed. I've added a row at the top of the table here: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Wide_Review#Disposition_of_issues_raised Chris - in the last email in the thread you wrote " I think we probably do need a paragraph about leap seconds and intercalation. I can write it." Is this present? Simon -----Original Message----- From: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org] Sent: Friday, 28 April, 2017 23:43 To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org Subject: OWL-Time: i18n comments? Simon, Chris, While preparing the transition request for the Time Ontology, I noticed that the group sought a review from the i18n group back in July 2016, which is great. John Cowan commented on the draft at that time: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2016JulSep/0029.html Have these comments been addressed somehow? Or were they missed somehow? If so, could you look into them? I will close the loop with the i18n group in parallel. Thanks, Francois.
Received on Sunday, 30 April 2017 01:24:04 UTC