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

RE: Change in definition of RDF literals

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 14:43:45 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20030529143658.0723ba50@localhost>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <gk@ninebynine.org>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org

At 18:30 03/05/27 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
>At 11:22 27/05/2003 -0400, Martin Duerst wrote:
>
>>Sorry for being offline so long.
>>
>>I have added the I18N WG back into the cc.
>
>Hmm, reviewing your post, I couldn't see how it related to I18N 
>issues.  Perhaps this would be a good time to ask for summary of the I18N 
>issue and discussion so far.  Martin?

Hello Brian,

My post was trying to address some specific points in the argumentation
of Patrick and Jeremy, which is related to the overall issue.

I copied i18n because I think they should have been copied on the
whole discussion, not because that particular mail of mine was
particularly important. On the i18n side, many of my colleagues
still have a hard time understanding what is at issue, and the
more of a chance they get to follow the discussion, the more
they might have a chance to get an overall impression.

Two days ago, the I18N WG (core TF) asked me for a summary.
Now you are asking me for a summary. Unfortunately, these are
two totally different summaries. What is more, I just had
a very interesting long discussion this morning with Ralph,
and agreed to write a summary of that, too. I hope to be able
to do these things soon.


Regards,  Martin.
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2003 16:00:55 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:34 EDT