- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:25:16 -0500
- To: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 08:15, Steve Harris wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 01:48:27 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > Could we add, for the record, this test case illustrates the ambiguity due > > to order of evaulation with multiple optional triples: theer is no nesting > > of optionals > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0652.html > > > > We need to cover the issue sometime if we adopt 3.6. > > Sorry, I meant to mail to ask if you wanted this included - I agreed to > try to freeze the document by Friday the 25th IIRC, but I'm happy to > add this is people are OK with it. Please do include it. I don't see much value in freezing the test case sketches at this point. > > - Steve -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2004 09:25:46 UTC