- From: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 06:59:15 -0700
- To: "Art Barstow" <barstow@w3.org>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Art Barstow said: > WRT BC, would it help to define an additional parseType value > (e.g. "rdf:Literal")? BC = "Backwards compatibility"? How would parseType="rdf:Literal" differ from parseType="Literal"? We should probably warn people that in the future the number of values of the parseType attribute will increase, and those values will probably move to QNames. However, I don't think we need to actually define a bunch of QNames now. > Anyhow, was the owner of rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure present? > If so, was he in favor of this approach? Dan C. was not on the call. > Should we expect a more > formal proposal based on this outline from someone (or the group > that met after the meeting)? Probably safest not to expect anything more on this unless the group discusses it and people want to pick it up. Ron
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 10:01:47 UTC