- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:11:17 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
>>>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. Dave
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2002 06:12:22 UTC