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

Re: I18N Issue alternative: collapsing plain and xml literals

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 16:49:45 -0400
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030909204945.GA27848@w3.org>

* Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2003-09-09 17:23+0100]
> Patrick Stickler wrote:
> >
> >
> >I've tried to be careful not to describe it as a proposal.  This is an 
> >alternative design.  I'm not proposing it, just describing it.
> >
> >	At this stage in the game, are "descriptions that
> >	aren't proposals" really productive? Can there
> >	even be such a distinction?
> I did wonder about that, but was persuaded by Danbri that it was worth 
> sending this in.
I think it is important to document that WG members have, offline and
on, given thoughtful consideration to alternative designs and the 
(not always immediately obvious) ramifications for the rest of our 
design and those (such as OWL's) that depend on it.


> I'm certain there is a distinction between advocacy and description. 
> I'm not proposing this in the sense that I'm interested in understanding 
> this design better, but am not proposing that we change the current design.
> Brian
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2003 16:49:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:08 UTC