- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 11:21:33 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Dan Brickley wrote: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/ > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-testcases-20030123/ > > 'Most directories have a name that is identical to the related > issue in the RDF Issue Tracking document. For example, the directory > rdf-ns-prefix-confusion is identical to the rdf-ns-prefix-confusion issue.' > > The directory and the issue aren't identical; only their names. > > Perhaps something like this would work?: > > Most directories have a name that is identical to that of the > corresponding issue in the RDF Issue Tracking document. > For example, the directory 'rdf-ns-prefix-confusion' is named after the > 'rdf-ns-prefix-confusion' issue. > > cheers, On reflection, since the manifest file captures the relationship between a test case and any related issue, I'm inclined to simply strike this text. Would that suffice? -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/ Generalisation is never appropriate.
Received on Saturday, 8 February 2003 06:24:06 UTC