W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 11:12:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+YuDEaa+87Q1UygmdobYpNKXO8k7KE7+ZqR27CBDQTwVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Davis <id@talis.com>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 15 October 2011 11:01, Ian Davis <id@talis.com> wrote:
> FWIW I find the term archaic slightly derogatory.

I've used it in FOAF since it doesn't offend me as editor of FOAF
spec; and as for instance data publishers, I think it has about the
right level of unsettlingness about it. But I'm curious if it is also
derogatory to publishers of data that use the old-fashioned terms.
That wouldn't be so nice...

Received on Saturday, 15 October 2011 10:13:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:09 UTC