W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2002

RE: Is issue 353 really all set in the text

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 01:41:54 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02A9FB85@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "W3C Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>

I added text to bullet 1 under 3.1.1 that says

	'In such cases the element information item represents both a
graph edge and a graph node'

I think this covers the fourth entry for 353

You are correct that our resolution regarding inbound/outbound etc for
edges has covered the third entry for 353

I've been setting issues to 'closed' once I've sent the resolution text.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 20 September 2002 02:59
> To: Marc Hadley; Martin Gudgin; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; 
> Jean-Jacques Moreau; W3C Archive
> Subject: Is issue 353 really all set in the text
> Issue 353 has 4 parts in the editors' to do.  While working 
> on the response, I was cross checking the 4th of the four 
> sub-parts which claims our status is.
> 353  Part 2  Section 3.1.1: Fix language regarding element 
> information items, edges and nodes.  Incorporate resolution 
> as in issue description Low  Done. 20020823 MJG
> The requested change is:
> q) [Part2 3.1.1 Encoding graph edges and nodes]
> The first sentence of this section is strongly worded, and 
> suggests that element information items *only* represent 
> edges, when in fact they at times represent a combined edge 
> and node. (for example in the first sentence of
> 3.1.3) Please correct this.
> ...but my  reading of the editors' copy is that the change is 
> not made. Current text is:
> "Each graph edge is encoded as an element information item 
> and each element information item represents a graph edge."
> What is our intended resolution?  I'm going to hold off with 
> the formal closing response until we decide.
> The second part of that request is:
> "Bullet 4 mentions "a graph edge [that] does not terminate in 
> a graph node". This is confusing, and seemingly in conflict 
> with the first sentence in
> 2.1:
> " Edges in the graph are said to originate at a graph node 
> and terminate at a graph node."
> While it's not reflected in the ed todo, I think I can say 
> "we've officially decided that edges can be dangling, inbound 
> or outbound, and that we've generally updated the text 
> accordingly.  Right?  If so, it's only the first part (of the 
> 4th part!) above that's in question.
> While I'm busy bugging my fellow editors:  am I supposed to 
> change the ed todo from orange to grey after sending the 
> responses, or are we doing that sometime later?  Thanks.
> Thanks.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 04:42:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:31:53 UTC