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

RE: Guide: draft of Oct 31

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 01 Nov 2002 16:39:39 -0600
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>, Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1036190379.11400.733.camel@dirk>

On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 16:33, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 16:10, Smith, Michael K wrote:
> > 
> > Regarding Mime types and content negotiation.  
> > 
> > I want to present examples that will work without reference to

oops; maybe I read too fast... is this about extensions
on example files? If it's about the owl.rdf file,
my show-stopping objection stands.

> > the particular server/client pairing.  So I am inclined to leave
> > the suffixes in.
> 
> No.
> 
> Sorry I don't have time to elaborate just now, but this is
> a show-stopping objection.
> 
> To leave the suffixes in would be counter
> to our decision
> 
> =========
> excerpt from http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf3.html
> 
> PROPOSED: to use for the namespace name: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
> RESOLVED
> 
> ACTION Connoly to get the above OK'd by the W3C webmaster/director;
> ACTION Dean to update the reference document
> =========
> 
> 
> >  Is there somewhere I could point the reader
> > so that they can understand the issues/advantages of using
> > content negotiation?  
> 
> For now, please put some sort of "NOTE: explain
> this better next time" editorial note.
> 
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
office: tel:+1-913-491-0501
mobile: mailto:connolly+pager@w3.org
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 17:39:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:55 GMT