- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:14:28 -0500
- To: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
- Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
On Nov 28, 2005, at 9:53 AM, Ben Adida wrote: > On Nov 28, 2005, at 9:12 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: > >> > one of my main arguments in favour of CURIEs is that we >> > need a way to abbreviate URIs in a manner that has *already* become >> > established practice via QNames >> >> -- >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Nov/ >> 0021 >> >> Who is the "we" there? Is this requirement really established? > > "we" is the sense of the task force after months of thinking about > requirements from customers like the IPTC. This has been documented on > the mailing list, Really? I don't believe so. I've seen comments from individuals, but I don't recall the taskforce as a whole giving a position on this. But I may have lost track of how the taskforce makes decisions (which is easy to do, since the only charter(s) I can find are expired. http://www.w3.org/2003/08/rdf-in-xhtml-charter.html#_Duration ) > and we're trying to find the time to put together all the pointers > that clarify this requirement from all of our discussions and input > from customers over the past 6 months. I look forward to more of that. It's risky to get into detailed design discussion in advance of having requirements clear. Sometimes it's a good risk to take, but sometimes not. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 16:15:13 UTC