Skip to content

Add version announcement section #187

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

rubensworks
Copy link
Member

@rubensworks rubensworks commented Apr 15, 2025

As discussed in w3c/rdf-star-wg#141, this adds a short section to the introduction about version announcement.

I tried to limit the text as much as possible to the common elements across all relevant specs, so that format-specific details can build on top of this.

This could also be a dedicated section outside of the introduction, if that would be preferred.

I did not add myself as editor, since I have not been involved in this spec so far yet, and probably won't be anymore after this change. But please let me know if I should add myself nevertheless.


Preview | Diff

Copy link
Member

@gkellogg gkellogg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As noted, we shouldn't use normative terms such as SHOULD, MUST, or MAY in an informative section.

It may be best to leave conformance wording to the concrete syntaxes, and be more descriptive in Concepts.

rubensworks and others added 2 commits April 16, 2025 08:14
Co-authored-by: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
@niklasl
Copy link
Contributor

niklasl commented Apr 16, 2025

Since this is about syntax (IMHO, and not about versioning in general), I think it would be best to add this section after 1.9 RDF Documents and Syntaxes.

@hartig
Copy link
Contributor

hartig commented Apr 16, 2025

I second @niklasl's suggestion to move this section after 1.9 RDF Documents and Syntaxes.

@rubensworks rubensworks added needs discussion Proposed for discussion in an upcoming meeting spec:substantive Change in the spec affecting its normative content (class 3) –see also spec:bug, spec:new-feature labels Apr 16, 2025
Copy link
Member

@gkellogg gkellogg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Once the Content-Type vs. media-type issues have been reconciled, and we've cleaned up the language of what to do when there are conflicts, I think this is good to go.

rubensworks and others added 3 commits April 18, 2025 10:21
Co-authored-by: Pierre-Antoine Champin <github-100614@champin.net>
Co-authored-by: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
needs discussion Proposed for discussion in an upcoming meeting spec:substantive Change in the spec affecting its normative content (class 3) –see also spec:bug, spec:new-feature
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants