- From: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:26:10 -0400
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 11:07 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: > * Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2003-09-02 15:59+0100] >> 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. > > Yes, at least in the documents. I didn't attempt this in the > boilerplate > I drafted since it is intended to be mixed-in with per document text. This boilerplate was carried over from LC2 stod and as Danbri mentioned and was intended to be generic across documents. The thought was that editors would include high level big general issues highlighted with a link to the more detailed changes section. [[ @@ highlighted changes the editors might want to summarize per document here @@. Detailed changes from the previous 23 January 2003 working draft are described in the Changes section. ]] I certainly was thinking the i18n's xml lang/xml literal issue and removal of social meaning section at the time I drafted the above. > >> Does it make sense for such highlighting to go in the status section? > > I think so. At a high level, I agreed. -- eric miller http://www.w3.org/people/em/ semantic web activity lead http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ w3c world wide web consortium http://www.w3.org/
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 11:30:02 UTC