Apology accepted José :)
Deep gratitude to Jo for trying to save me having to do more fiddling with the document, but in a last, final, ultimate attempt to get closure on this draft I will do one last piece of fiddling and see what can be done about the latest (final?) suggestions from José, and hopefully we will have a final version that the majority can feel comfortable with.
---Rotan
[Extracting fiddle from case and tuning up the strings...]
-----Original Message-----
From: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA [mailto:
jmcf@...]
Sent: 11 April 2008 09:37
To: Jo Rabin; Rotan Hanrahan;
public-ddwg@...
Subject: RE: Core Vocab Draft 1i
Sorry for being persistent and my apologies for my wishes of the correction of a document that is going to potentially be read by hundreds of people around the world ...
+ UAProf appears in the references but it is not cross-referenced when it appears on the text
+ The Top N thing still appears but, how a clueless reader that does not know anything about it is going to figure what is "Top N"
+ Aspect names are not between <code>
+ "This Vocabulary defines two Aspect webBrowser and device serves to disambiguate the usage of Properties such as Vendor. Other Vocabularies may define other values for Aspects"
The phrase seems unmeaningful ... Why not ....
"The DDR Core Vocabulary defines two Aspects, <code>webBrowser</code> and <code>device</code, which serve to ...."
Best Regards
-----Mensaje original-----
De:
public-ddwg-request@... [mailto:
public-ddwg-request@...] En nombre de Jo Rabin
Enviado el: viernes, 11 de abril de 2008 10:17
Para: Rotan Hanrahan;
public-ddwg@...
Asunto: Core Vocab Draft 1i
To save Rotan fiddling with it here is a new draft with 1 change from
1h:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/drafts/corevocabulary/080411Jo
[Door slams shut behind him]
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
public-ddwg-request@... [mailto:
public-ddwg-request@...]
On
> Behalf Of Rotan Hanrahan
> Sent: 11 April 2008 06:48
> To:
public-ddwg@...
> Subject: RE: Aspect names in the Core Vocabulary latest draft
>
>
> I rather like the device and webBrowser aspect names as they are.
>
> And if we're now down to the point of discussing the case of letters,
then
> I'll take it as a sign that the substantive work is (in all
likelihood)
> OK. That's important, because with our XMLSpec guru away for a few
days,
> it falls to me to deal with the final changes. (Many many thanks Jo
for
> everything to date!)
>
> So, putting the chair's hat firmly on my head, I'm going to propose
that
> this document (when the proposed edits of the past few hours have been
> addressed) is as good as we can make it in the time available ahead of
the
> moratorium on publication. I give the group one work day (today,
Friday)
> to become familiar again with the *substantive* material of the
document
> and be prepared to resolve to publish this document at our meeting on
> Monday. Apologies to anyone who will have to read this over the
weekend,
> but as it has been available in evolving draft form for many months
I'm
> assuming that most people are already familiar with it.
>
> Thanks to everyone who has contributed (and *please* no more typos or
> tweaks, I'm not as good with XMLSpec as Jo is!!).
>
> ---Rotan.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From:
public-ddwg-request@... on behalf of Jo Rabin
> Sent: Fri 11/04/2008 00:00
> To: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA;
public-ddwg@...
> Subject: RE: Aspect names in the Core Vocabulary latest draft
>
>
>
> That is deliberate similarity and think that to do otherwise would be
> inconsistent.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From:
public-ddwg-request@... [mailto:
public-ddwg-request@...]
On
> Behalf Of JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA
> Sent: 10 April 2008 22:56
> To:
public-ddwg@...
> Subject: Aspect names in the Core Vocabulary latest draft
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I have noted that in the latest draft Core Vocabulary, aspect names
does
> not start with upper case. They are: device and webBrowser.
>
>
>
> Perhaps it could be a good idea to have aspect names starting with
upper
> case as it will serve to differentiate them against property names.
>
>
>
> What do others think?
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
