- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 06:31:14 -0500
- To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
* Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk> [2003-02-08 11:21+0000] > 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? Since there is (generally) a mapping, it is probably worth pointing this out for human readers. It doesn't matter to me a great deal either way, it's an editorial discretion thing I think. As currently phrased it is a bit confusing; either striking or rephrasing would work for me. Dan
Received on Saturday, 8 February 2003 06:31:16 UTC