- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 04 Nov 2002 17:08:23 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 16:53, Brian McBride wrote: [...] > That is currently how I see things, but I'm open to better suggestions. I don't think I'm happy about that, but I'm not sure I want to put getting happy in the critical path just now. My preference is that our docs say that RDF depends normatively on RFC2396 and xml:base and does resource="" per our tests, and that this is all consistent. But I'm not the editor, so I'll leave it to the editors to do their best in this round (keeping in mind that my support to go to last call is contingent on how it all turns out). What's become 100% clear to me is that we have a couple things to explicitly double-check at last call: -- confirmation from RDF Core that we're xml-base-happy (or that they agree that whatever inconsistencies we come up with are merited) -- some sort of confirmation that our spec is consistent with the URI spec (from Roy and/or other participants in uri@w3.org) as well (or that they agree that whatever inconsistencies we come up with are merited) -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 18:08:58 UTC