- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:48:48 +0100
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:28 21/10/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote: [...] >Here a few that come to mind... > >1. Backwards compatability with existing usage. I think we'd need a few examples to reference >2. Consistency in the treatment of literals which promotes generic code. That seems a bit weak. I would have thought the potential for user confusion far outweighed that. >3. M&S says that language codes are part of literals, and typed literals > are still literals. That is very weak. Typed literals are a new idea; we have flexibility there. We don't need a lot of justification. Just one strong reason would be better. Brian
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 04:46:19 UTC