Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-1: reification

> So I guess what I'm saying is "+1 for removing 'link and meta
> anywhere', and then "+1 for *not* reinstating reification with some
> other syntax".

Okay, but allow me to split these issues, just so we do things formally.

The META and LINK in the body is going to be ISSUE-9:
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/9

On this issue, ISSUE-1, let's talk simply about whether we want to
support reification. I take it from your comment that your answer is "no."

I will follow up immediately with an email regarding ISSUE-9.

-Ben