- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:27:01 +0000
- 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. Brian
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 12:25:46 UTC