- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:07:52 +0100
- To: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
>> >> >>> PROPOSED: to resolve issues 140, 141, 146, 133, 144, 145, 149, 150, >>> 152, 162, 160, 171, 172, 178 and 180 (part 1) as described in >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.html >> >> I'm ok for sending the answers proposed for all these comments. But I >> don't know if that *resolves* the issues: there are some changes that >> commenters have to approve of, aren't there? > > The key thing is that if the commenter is happy, then I believe that > the editors have the backing of the WG to resolve the issues without > coming back again. That's how this was interpreted during the call: > > http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-irc#T16-21-34 > > I assume the minutes will be clearer :-) Yes, there was no ambiguity during the telconference. Note that I sent this mail before the teleconference. But my mails just went very wrong over the past days. I apologize for the hundreds of answers about 181-185, by the way :-/ Antoin
Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 11:53:18 UTC