- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:32:27 -0500
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:31:31 -0500, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: >> Will note this for new proposals, but for current terms I think we're >> stuck with what we've got i.e. changing URIs now would be too >> disruptive. > Huh? There isn't even a 1st working draft yet. Hasn't everybody who > picked this work up so far been notified that it's subject to change? That's only tue from the "W3C is the only place in town" view, but the work was originally done in a development and implementation oriented project. Given that at the time there was an active effort and resources put into making it clear how to do this stuff in multiple languages, the cost of changes is higher than in an essentially monolingual development approach like W3C's. Anyway, changing the string used in URIs seems like concentrating on the wrong trivia. So while in principle anything is open to change, there is a cost. And I think in this case it is relatively high. On the other hand, it will only get higher if we wait... cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar charles@sidar.org +61 409 134 136 http://www.sidar.org
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2005 21:33:18 UTC