RE: dropping earl:Content in favor of http:Content

Hi group,
 
>First, please make sure you have read the summary of the issue in:
>  [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Aug/0012>
>
>We have discussed this issue again during the teleconference of 29
>August [2] but with no definitive resolution. There are two specific
>questions to the group:
>
>#1. Any objections to dropping earl:Content in favor of http:Content?
>(these classes are redundant and should be merged *somewhere*)
>
>#2. Should http:Content be separated out from HTTP-in-RDF, for example
>in some other namespace? In another document too?

I think that HTTP-in-RDF is not the place for a generic Content class if 
we want to keep a "pure" HTTP language.
 
Having said that, if we want to keep it simpel and choose one of both I 
prefer to keep the earl one, but I think that if we use a new namespace 
(and document) we'll be following the best practices
 
Regards,
 CI.