- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:40:53 +0100
- To: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 12:25 18/08/03 +0100, Jan Grant wrote: >Item 11: I18N update. > > The WG discussed an upcoming objection from I18N. > em explained that we needed to give strong evidence that we had > explored the design space; that we had done "due diligence" > with the community; that we had considered and rejected > the objection for sound reasons. > > pats expressed the view (to some support) that the I18N problems > are generic XML ones, not RDF specific ones; that RDF wasn't > the place to address these. I believe Brian had been following a line that there was no substantiated foundation to the objection; i.e. that the I18N folks had failed to show any specific harm caused by the current proposal. If I'm right that this is the current position, then preparin a response based on our research of the design space seems to be missing the point. #g ------------ Graham Klyne _________ GK@ninebynine.org ___|_o_o_o_|_¬ \____________/ (nb Helva) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ @Little Venice, Grand Union Canal
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2003 10:37:08 UTC