RE: ISSUE: XMLLiteral and xml:lang

> >
> >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