It may be opportune to point out that on Monday's call we resolved: "The WG is happy to forego grouping by resource property if that means that POWDER avoids a lot of complexity for little obvious gain." :-) Jeremy Carroll wrote: > Phil Archer wrote: > >> Personally, I am a little reluctant to let go completely of resource >> set definitions based on resource properties (cf. URI component >> properties) as it is not hard to conceive of real-world situations >> where this is of potential usage. For example, an English teacher >> might publish an opinion that if the language used in a particular >> reference document is en-us then both the spelling and usage of nouns >> as verbs is not to be repeated when answering exam questions; if the >> number of images in a document exceeds x then the page in unlikely to >> be suitable for display on mobile etc. These apply whatever the URI(s) >> of the resource may be. >> > > At this stage, let's agree to differ on that one. > > I will move on to making more concrete proposals, and we will need to > revisit this disagreement. > > Jeremy > > -- Phil Archer Chief Technical Officer, Family Online Safety Institute w. http://www.fosi.org/people/philarcher/Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 11:52:05 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 October 2008 00:56:55 GMT