Re: (draft) SOTD for Sept 5th RDFCore WDs

looks ok to me.

I suggest that we particularly want to highlight i18n's xml lang/xml 
literal issue and request feedback, say in both concepts and in syntax, 
and in the announcement.

Does it make sense for such highlighting to go in the status section?

Brian


Dan Brickley wrote:
> * Eric Miller <em@w3.org> [2003-09-02 09:08-0400]
> 
>>Danbri, how are you doing on your action item on the boilerplate SOTD?
> 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/templates/sept-wd-sotd.html
> 
> I'd appreciate a sanity check from WG and at least one of 
> Brian or Eric before folk start copying and pasting. Of course 
> each spec needs it's own info re per-doc changes too, see the @@section
> for where to put that.
> 
> The guts of the SOTD is:
> 
> 	This Working Draft consolidates changes and editorial improvements
> 	undertaken in response to feedback received during the Last Call
> 	publication of the RDFCore specifications which began on 23 January
> 	2003.
> 
> ...brief, factual and not really getting into business of where we
> expect to go next.
> 
> 
> Dan

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 11:04:47 UTC