- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 14 Dec 2002 03:05:49 -0600
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 01:31, pat hayes wrote: > Brian, Dan makes some good points that would be best fixed. How much > of a disaster would it be if I were to give you a revised snapshot by > say Monday EOW my time (evening your time)?? All the changes will be > link-fixings and small text-edits, nothing earthshaking. I also plan > to call out formal technical definitions, give them all anchors and > put in links from every term use to a glossary entry or definition, > throughout the text. Don't put too much editorial make-work in the critical path at this point, Pat. If you think that sort of pass over the document will *help* the technical consistency, perhaps it's worth the time. But if it distracts from technical matters, those things can be done after last call. [...] > >(is that term anchored? > >hmm... it's not in the glossary. I guess > >the glossary is only for terms imported > >from conventional literature, not for novel > >terms in this spec. hmm... I hate having > >to view-source to find anchor names; it would > >be nice to have the terms introduced in this > >spec collected somewhere.) > > OK, I could break out the definitions and give links to them, in the > style used in the XML Schema doc. Thats a bit more work. I can > probably get to that on Monday. The XML Schema editors used automated tools to achive that style. When I say "it would be nice", I just mean it would be nice. I don't mean "put the schedule at risk to achieve this." -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2002 04:06:33 UTC