- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 13:25:29 +0100
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: <spetschu@ca.ibm.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 10:51 AM 8/31/02 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: >Well, those were desiderada put forth by WG members. If the >final proposed solution does not address them, then we should >say so clearly. But they still remain valid input into the >process. > >It certainly would be possible to try to do some wordsmithing >to make them clearer. I think it's reasonable to view the desiderata as part of the process of arriving at a specification, rather than something that has to considered part of the final specification. To the extent that they aid understanding (the motivation of) the spec, I think it's helpful to leave them. But if we've dramatically scaled back the goals of datatyping, I don't think it necessarily helps to include them in the reduced document. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 08:50:00 UTC