- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:32:55 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 11:27, Brian McBride wrote: > 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. Or maybe you do... danc-01 might turn out to be more significant than I thought at first... You certainly didn't do anything bad... > >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? That's a rule of thumb I use, yes. But you/we should also consider that a spec could be technically/formally correct but so confusing as to hamper deployment of the technology... or that a commentor who could potentially cause wide deployment of the spec might get discouraged by dismissal of their comments as "merely editorial." > >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. Maybe, maybe not. > Brian -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 13:33:27 UTC