W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: proposed resolution of Qualified Restrictions

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:28:49 -0400
Message-ID: <030001c1ebbd$e1bfbc30$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Cc: <mike.dean@bbn.com>
Jeremy,

> I heard that the set of people who understood what the Q things were was
small,
> and that no-one in that set could think of a good reason for having them.
...
>
> (I believe that the unqualified restrictions are commonly implemented as
qualified
> restrictions).

Can this be confirmed i.e. does this mean that there is _effectively_ no
difference between the qualified and unqualified restrictions? If this is
the case, then I have no objection to removing them. I just want to be sure
what is what before we decide.

>
> >
> > 2) Mike Dean had already raised another issue [3.2 Qualified
Restrictions].
> > How is this issue different from the issue at hand? I presume Mike has a
> > desire for qualified restrictions, otherwise why was that issue raised.
At
> > the very least we should hear what Mike et al. have to say before
closing
> > the issue.
>
> I used the URLref of Mike's issue.
> Unfortunately someone changed the fragment ID under my feet! :)
>
> This is the same as that issue.

Ok, then can Mike better explain why the issue was raised in the first place
(the archives are equally scantly on this)?

I don't mean to hold up progress, I just want to be systematic.

Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 14:34:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:49 GMT