W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > January 2003

RE: ISSUE: XMLLiteral and xml:lang

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:01:46 +0100
To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDMEBACBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


> >
> >3: Make the above comment to RDF Core suggesting they are more specific.
> >
>
>   it seems to me that this is completely and RDF issue, and only
> impacts OWL because OWL documents are RDF documents (making us
> uniquely qualified to comment on them) - if that is true, I would
> support the third option, with a recourse of going to option 1 or 2
> if RDF Core doesn't comply  - this latter might or might not be a
> threat to our LC status depending on how liberally one interprets
> "editorial change" and if we hold off creating a test case until we
> hear from RDF Core - seems to me endorsing option 1 requires the
> least work...
>   -JH
>

Update -

The last call reviewer of this part of the spec is Joe Reagle, he has
suggested that:
- the use of both exc-c14n and c14n is confusing
- that it is a mistake to have the implementation variability

I will keep this WG informed of progress, but suggest for now, that we
simply watch what RDF Core do in response to
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0128.html

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 05:02:08 GMT

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