On 5 Feb 2009, at 14:33, Ivan Herman wrote: > Bijan, > > let me propose something else. I have a colleague at CWI who also > has a > position at the VU so he may know whether this is really the issue. > I am > happy to talk to him. How does that sound? You certainly don't need my permission :) Go for it. > My problem is that this issue seems to be so obviously a syntax one > that > I just do not see where a person like Frank would see a problem > with it... My impression was that they did it in a bit of a rush and in that case it's easy to have a brain fart. Furthermore, the treatment of blank nodes in the abstract syntax of the old document was *very* unclear (I spent a couple of years thinking they were disallowed :)). But sure. Check away. Whatever you need to raise your comfort level is fine with me. Cheers, Bijan.Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 14:55:20 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 5 February 2009 14:55:21 GMT