>Hi Patrick, > >At 12:00 12/02/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote: >>On 2002-02-12 11:48, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> >>> However, I do not consider, "because >>> Patrick says so" to be a good reason. >> >>Tut, tut, Brian. Never expected you to. > >I note that you have not responded to the following: > >However, I would ask the WG, whether they feel that they would owe >me, and other developers, an explanation for why, having gone to the >trouble of implementing the spec correctly, we should be asked to >change our code. I would say that (1) the spec was ambiguously worded, and you have based your code on a risky intepretation of a single sentence, so you must be prepared to accept the risks; and (2) the WG's charter is to clarify the spec. There is inevitably a risk, therefore, that code written on the basic of an unclear spec may have to be modified when it is clarified. Sorry, life is tough. >and > >I have not seen anything in what you have written that comes close >to an explanation of why this change would be a good thing. If there >is something I have missed, then could I trouble you please to >repeat it, or to provide a reference. I have to say< I do not see it as being a change. If literals are NOT strings, on the other hand, we have to (1) modify N-triples syntax (2) rewrite (and probably re-think) every example in every document that uses a literal (3) re-write, and probably re-think, the entire MT document (4) re-open the datatyping discussion, as new options are now possible. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayesReceived on Wednesday, 27 February 2002 11:38:25 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:20 EDT