W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: Last call comment process

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:27:01 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 08:47 28/01/2003 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:

>On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 07:09, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> > Brian
> >
> > would you please walk me through what I am meant to do.
> >
> > Dan has made a comment on my text, you have assigned a number to it:
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#danc-02
> > and given it a name "goofy literals".
>Gee... I would hope this is a simple editorial tweak, not
>the sort of thing where the WG need be involved.

My bad.  I don't have a good feeling for where to draw the line between 
editors discretion and what should be brought back the WG.

>Nobody has to change any test cases or code over this;
>it's just a matter of how the text is written.

Is that a good rule of thumb;  If it is just a matter of clarifying the 
text to better express the intent of the WG, then editors have discretion?

>It's fine to be conservative about these things,
>but if it were me, this wouldn't warrant an issue.

Fine by me.  Sounds like I was being too heavy handed.

Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 12:25:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:20 UTC