Re: Last Call comments on "Concepts and Abstract Syntax"

Sorry I was garbled - you understood correctly.

Jeremy

Williams, Stuart wrote:

> Hi Jeremy,
> 
> I think that you are telling me that section 7 "Fragment Identifiers" is
> deemed informative and that you have removed all doubt by not using the
> 'informative' designation from all section headings and relying on the
> sentence, "Within this document, normative sections are explicitly labelled
> as such. Explicit notes are informative." from the introduction to establish
> a non-normative/informative default.
> 
> I that is what you are telling me I am happy that that resolves the comment
> I made.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stuart
> --
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
>>Sent: 09 April 2003 08:07
>>To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org; skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>>Subject: Re: Last Call comments on "Concepts and Abstract Syntax"
>>
>>
>>
>>Stuart,
>>
>>SubTopic: Informative/Normative
>>
>>I made a small mistake ... :(
>>
>>In:
>>
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMa
>>r/0329.html
>>[[
>>Stuart:
>>
>>>9) Section 7 Fragment Identifiers.
>>>
>>>This section (and many others) is not explicitly labelled as normative
>>>
> or
> 
>>>informative (both deginations are used elsewhere). I assume this is an
>>>informative section, but I think it would be helpful to be explicit in
>>>
> this
> 
>>>case rather than leave any doubt.
>>>
>>Jeremy:
>>I believe we intended it as informative.
>>Accepted.
>>]]
>>
>>We have deleted the last occurrance of the word "informative" in a section
>>
> 
>>heading with the resolution of the social meaning issue. The other
>>
> occurrence 
> 
>>of the word informative is in section 1
>>
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20030123/#section-Introduction
>>
> 
> The sentence being:
> [[
> Within this document, normative sections are explicitly labelled as such. 
> Explicit notes are informative.
> ]]
> 
> I hope that that sentence adequately addresses this concern, and no change
> is 
> necessary.
> Please reply if this is OK.
> 
> Jeremy
>

Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 04:37:38 UTC