Re: Issues concerning parseType

Hi Ken,

Ken Baclawski wrote:

> I agree that it is useful to anticipate future extensions, but not at the
> cost of making the current specification inconsistent.

This is an issue that has come up before, and the spec clearly needs
clarification.  Can you point me to the text where M&S specifically says
that parseType values other than Resource and Literal are allowed.  A
reference to the paragraph numbered version of the spec at:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part

is helpful. A paragraph reference can be created by adding #para-num to
that URL.

Brian