Skip to content
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

Address various errata #23

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Feb 6, 2025
Merged

Address various errata #23

merged 7 commits into from
Feb 6, 2025

Conversation

niklasl
Copy link
Contributor

@niklasl niklasl commented Jan 25, 2025

This addresses some of the errata items referenced in #2. Each commit represents one item, or part thereof.


Preview | Diff

This incorporates the
[suggestion by Sam Pinkus](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2014Jul/0004.html)
to public-rdf-comments, as referenced in the
[errata item 9](https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/RDF1.1_Errata#erratum_9).
As slightly shorter variant of the
[suggestion by Sam Pinkus](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2014Jul/0003.html),
which was "Syntactic form of a triple".
As separately reported by Michał Politowski, Jorge Barba, and Johannes
Scheiermann.

See [errata item 10](https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/RDF1.1_Errata#erratum_10).

Text now reads as [suggested by Jorge](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2014Oct/0002.html).
@niklasl
Copy link
Contributor Author

niklasl commented Jan 25, 2025

I think #15 is simple enough to also be addressed in this PR. I will add a commit for that unless anyone prefers that as a separate PR.

spec/index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@TallTed TallTed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

@niklasl niklasl added Editorial Errata management: this erratum is editorial propose closing Proposed for closing and removed propose closing Proposed for closing labels Jan 28, 2025
spec/index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@niklasl
Copy link
Contributor Author

niklasl commented Jan 30, 2025

Process questions:

  1. I think this PR is straightforward and acceptable to simply merge after a week of approvals? (I.e. without taking up meeting time; related to discussion about merging principles.)
  2. For this one I'll keep each individual commit, since they address distinctly reported concerns. (Though I might "fixup" the "Adjust" commits to keep it more clean.)

@niklasl niklasl requested review from afs and domel January 30, 2025 10:33
@niklasl niklasl merged commit e80a36e into main Feb 6, 2025
1 check passed
@niklasl niklasl deleted the errata branch February 6, 2025 17:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Editorial Errata management: this erratum is editorial
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants