>>>Jeremy Carroll said: > > Dave > >> We aren't normative on charmod. or c14n? > Graham > > Currently, we *are* normative on these. > > Dave we did for a while have a crossed wire in the doc where we were citing > c14n rather than xc14n, that may have been your point of confusion on that > one. > > (xc14n depends on c14n so either way we *are* dependent on c14n :( ). And charmod? If you add a dependency here - and it is an addition - it's to a WD, not a REC and it would be a new thing that RDF implementors would have to look at. I'm pretty confident we decided not to depend on charmod in it's current non-REC state. DaveReceived on Tuesday, 30 July 2002 06:12:22 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:54 EDT