- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:40:56 +0200
- To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Sean Bechhofer" <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> > > For each proposed test, in my view, we should do one of: > > > > a) approve it > > b) obsolete it (no explanation needed) > > c) move it to extra credit. > > Um, how is "extra credit" signified? It looks like part of the test > name now; shouldn't it be a status, a kind of Approved? > That's an interesting idea - I missed this earlier: <test:status>EXTRACREDIT</test:status> (implies <test:status>APPROVED</test:status>) that works I think; also fits with my earlier message today about the nonentailments. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2003 07:49:01 UTC