- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 13:14:34 -0500
- To: Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com>
- CC: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > The chairs might even want to put this issue aside for > a while, until we've closed a few others, lest it > should consume all available bandwidth and produce > little in the way of results. I'm going to have to agree with Dan in this situation. For now, let's use the definitions defined by HTTP and the other relevant specs. DanC reviewed this in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0021.html These definitions have served us well for a rather long time, and I don't think that RDF needs any modifications to these definitions. I suggest we use our teleconference time to deal with test cases and their dispositions. Other discussions are more appropriately held on the email list -- I've found it much more effective. If people are confused with the definitions currently used the Web architecture specs, I suggest they take their questions to a more appropriate forum (uri@w3.org comes to mind). Let's keep this list more specifically to RDF issues. -- [ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Friday, 11 May 2001 14:14:44 UTC