Andy Johnson

Per the 10/4/15 call, realized the UTF-8 String requirement didn't make it into 1.0.3 Restructure. Recommend more string language in Part 2: New Section 4.1 (bumping others). Suggest language around...

Ahh yes thanks, "does not" was the intent.

This is a weird question, but can I do this in the master branch? I mean updating the dev branch telling you to go to the dev branch seems odd....

Per the 3/21/2018 call, participants agreed with the -00 violating a MUST requirement. Unless further discussed, the LRS Conformance Test will be updated with a few "bad timestamp" tests, like...

Also per the 3/21/2018 call, suggest for next version - some text that suggests that BOTH of the timestamp requirements are separate and that RFC 3339 is NOT a subset...

Looks like this has to be a 1.1, though, as it actually changes meaning. Unless we have another spot in the document that is completely opposite of this point (and...

This is just a best practice, thus can be a patch issue.

We are okay removing this language as this is not actually a best practice and no enforcement is done by the LRS for SHOULD. Make this a PR.

The interesting thing now is that the spec makes no determination on what an LRS SHOULD/MUST/MAY do when the target Statement cannot be found. The next version of the spec...

Ha! Yes I did! I thought it was a lost conversation, but it was just another issue :) On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Andrew Downes [email protected] wrote:...