Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > test2 of Jan's first set of tests states that in a particular case, > the object of the statement is a literal, not a resource. > > test2 of Jan's second set of tests is a different case, falls under the rules > he refered to in his message and I quoted earlier. Those rules require > the object of the statement to a resource. Not to create a resource in this > case would be a change to the spec. > > test2 of Jan's first message says nothing about the interpretation of test2 > from his second set of tests. They are different cases. Yes, you are correct. However, I mentally lumped the issues together, even though they are discussed separately in the spec. I withdraw my comments. -- [ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]Received on Thursday, 7 June 2001 21:37:05 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:04 EDT