Re: DAWG meeting record 5 July 2005

On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 11:34:52PM -0400, Kendall Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 11:26:35PM -0400, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> > Please inspect
> >   <http://www.w3.org/2005/07/05-dawg-minutes>
> > for veracity, particularly, the text
> >   "Consensus seems to be that we can postpone as long as we don't
> >   syntactically overconstrain ourselves"
> >   <http://www.w3.org/2005/07/05-dawg-minutes#bnode_poll>
> > which I added from memory.
> 
> I don't remember anyone saying that.  And that doesn't jibe with my sense of
> the meeting. That's not even the way I understood the straw poll.
> 
> Unless others suggest otherwise, I don't think this is a very happy addition
> from memory. IMO.

I've left the question but commented out the disposition.
For context, DanC wasn't sure where to go with the stabil bNode issue
so I asked "of the +1s and +.5s, who is willing to postpone so long
was we don't do something with the syntax that makes it difficult.
I recall positive sounds from LeeF, SteveH, Elias, and PatH. I don't
recall your or Souri's responses. Unfortunately, the scribe (me) was
busy talking and failed to write it down.

I would like to know if postponing-with-a-plan will work here as it
will get us back on track for LC if we can satisfy ourselves that
there is a solution and we haven't made it too ugly with this version.

What do the other proponents of the requirement think about this
option?
-- 
-eric

office: +81.466.49.1170 W3C, Keio Research Institute at SFC,
                        Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Keio University,
                        5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-8520
                        JAPAN
        +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
cell:   +81.90.6533.3882

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.