- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:08:47 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
My apologies, I should have cited the URI. Let's see, this one: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030117/ modified: 22 July 2003 13:56:19 rcsid: 1.14 Yes, looks like the same as you mentioned. I got the link from the WG homepage editor's draft. #g -- At 13:36 28/07/03 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: >On Mon, 2003-07-28 at 11:57, Graham Klyne wrote: > > This is just to note that I've read through the syntax spec, > >Is that this one? > >http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030117/ >last-modified Tue, 22 Jul 2003 12:56:19 GMT > >That's what I find by following my nose from the WG homepage. > > > and (possibly > > apart from clarifying the C14N XML literal issue, I think it's ready to > > go. I've noted some minor editorial matters that I've passed to Dave. > > > > #g > > > > > > ------------------- > > Graham Klyne > > <GK@NineByNine.org> > > PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E >-- >Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 15:11:54 UTC