- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:13:35 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
I wouldn't be comfortable with marking Seq as "archaic" or similar unless there's a viable alternative, and I don't think List counts. - Steve On 2011-10-20, at 08:55, Ivan Herman wrote: > I am ok with prop. 2 on labeling seq to something like archaic but using another term. Note, however, that XMP uses Alt, too, not only Seq, ie, the same treatment should be applied to all containers... > > Ivan > > ---- > Ivan Herman > web: http://www.ivan-herman.net > mobile: +31 64 1044 153 > > On 19 Oct 2011, at 23:20, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote: > >> In today's telecon, we seemed to have a rough consensus on how to >> proceed with Seq and List, but still needed to hammer out some wording >> of proposals. I've created a wiki page with proposals on four >> different bits of this. Please feel free to improve the background >> text and the proposals. If you want to significantly change the >> proposal (instead of just improving the wording), then please add a >> different proposal next to the existing one(s). >> >> On the last one (whether or not to actually mark Seq as archaic), I'm >> not hearing anyone ready to formally object to either option, so I'm >> thinking a preference vote might be in order. >> >> The page: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Ordered >> >> -- Sandro >> >> >> > -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 11:14:14 UTC