- From: aphillips via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 05:41:36 +0000
- To: public-i18n-archive@w3.org
LOL. I can change it back to Wildebeest. There is no doubt that Mr. Fielding's definition is way more perfectly all-encompassing. But putting is here would be a problem. A person or a concept cannot contain syntactic content (and arguments can be made that they can't physically contain natural language content--stepping on Roy's toes will cause him to emit natural language rather than contain it, I suspect) But drollery aside... what should we call (er, uh) resources? -- GitHub Notification of comment by aphillips Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/charmod-norm/issues/59#issuecomment-179653097 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2016 05:41:38 UTC