- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:43:44 +0300
- To: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com] > Sent: 09 May, 2003 15:29 > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com; > jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: RE: typed literals and language tags - suggested sub-agenda > > > > So far I am the only one to have spoken against 4 - if there > are no others > who join me in that position in the telecon I am currently > expecting option > 4 to win. That would be very welcome. > Option 4 makes XMLLiteral ignore language. Right. So long as Dave's arguments that this is not in direct conflict with M&S, such that the charter doesn't get in the way, I think this will make the widest group of RDF users the happiest. To refresh my memory (and so I don't have to go searching through the archives) can you recap in a sentence or two what your concerns were with Option 4? Thanks, Patrick
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 08:43:50 UTC