- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:42:50 +0300
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com] > We were influenced largely by the desire not to rule Nokia's data > illegal. Despite that, the majority were in favour of not having the lang > code on the literal, but Nokia's willingness to dissent carried the > day. Since then we have learned that Nokia's data is illegal anyway No. It's not illegal anyway insofar as language tags are concerned. Only that we will need to use typed literals rather than inline literals. > and > Patrick has said: > > [[So I guess the WG can omit lang tags from literals entirely. > It's looking like it won't matter to us one way or another.]] > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0277.html > > Which I take to be a withdrawing of that dissent. The dissent is not withdrawn. I meant simply that it wouldn't matter one way or another if we stopped using RDF. We're not yet at that point. Not yet. Patrick
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 05:43:11 UTC