W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2003

Re: Denotation of XMLLiterals: poll

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:11:24 +0300
Message-ID: <000a01c35caa$bacf0130$f89216ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "rdf core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: ext Dan Brickley 
  To: Patrick Stickler 
  Cc: ext Brian McBride ; rdf core 
  Sent: 06 August, 2003 15:47
  Subject: Re: Denotation of XMLLiterals: poll

  * Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> [2003-08-06 15:40+0300]
  > Whatever solution we choose, it should provide enough information
  > to test equality of values.
  > Option A does not do that. The argument that integers are thus
  > vaguely defined is bogus, in that integers are defined sufficiently
  > well to test for equality, among other things. Option A is quite
  > a bit more vague than the definition of integers.
  > Option B seems the most promising. I'd like to hear
  > a summary of the concerns with this. I don't recall seeing anything
  > on the WG list.

  I just sent one: we would need to decide which version of XPath to
  reference, and understand any costs/risks re blessing XPath 1.0 when 2.0
  is looming.


Can someone more familiar with the W3C process clarify if/how
choosing XPath 2.0 might delay the rec process for RDF?

Isn't it one level of lag allowed for dependent specs? So if XPath 2.0
is at CR, RDF could reference it and still go to PR? But XPath 2.0
would need to go to PR before RDF could go to Rec?

Received on Thursday, 7 August 2003 02:11:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:07 UTC