- 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