Re: sick

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> 2) Ian's remarks, and IBM's comments, on the default data type.
> 
> With respect to everyone's comments, I haven't yet seen anything other
> than stated 'preferences' about what 'feels right'. Some people have
> said they'll be following up with other comments, and I'd like to see
> those before we spend time discussing this on a telecon. I've sent
> some comments to the list re-outlining the rationale behind the
> current position, with the intention of trying to get focused answers.
> I'd really appreciate (a) a *logical* justification for why using
> plain literals is more *correct* than using rdf:XMLLiteral and (b) a
> justification for why it is a good idea to remove authors' intent by
> 'flattening' any mark-up in an XHTML document to be plain literals.

I replied to your email with what I think is a logical justification for
using plain literals. I hope that we will give some time to the topic
during our meeting tomorrow. In my limited W3C WG experience, an email
from the community is just enough to warrant discussion on the call,
even if it's just to coordinate what the WG official answer will be.

I know RDFa has not been designed behind closed doors and there's a
community, but I would like to grow this community as much as as
possible. Ian's work reflects a lot of the requirements of the community
using eRDF which is also in need of RDFa.

-Elias

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark
>

Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 01:07:28 UTC