- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 10:32:22 +0100
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <gk@ninebynine.org>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
Hi Martin, I appreciate you are very busy. My request for a summary was really a technical device to make sure the discussion was on topic. I haven't been able to follow it all, but it seemed that it might be straying a little. I wasn't requesting a precis of the argument so far, but just a short statement of the issue. Maybe I should have been more direct. Brian At 14:43 29/05/2003 -0400, Martin Duerst wrote: >At 18:30 03/05/27 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >>At 11:22 27/05/2003 -0400, Martin Duerst wrote: >> >>>Sorry for being offline so long. >>> >>>I have added the I18N WG back into the cc. >> >>Hmm, reviewing your post, I couldn't see how it related to I18N >>issues. Perhaps this would be a good time to ask for summary of the I18N >>issue and discussion so far. Martin? > >Hello Brian, > >My post was trying to address some specific points in the argumentation >of Patrick and Jeremy, which is related to the overall issue. > >I copied i18n because I think they should have been copied on the >whole discussion, not because that particular mail of mine was >particularly important. On the i18n side, many of my colleagues >still have a hard time understanding what is at issue, and the >more of a chance they get to follow the discussion, the more >they might have a chance to get an overall impression. > >Two days ago, the I18N WG (core TF) asked me for a summary. >Now you are asking me for a summary. Unfortunately, these are >two totally different summaries. What is more, I just had >a very interesting long discussion this morning with Ralph, >and agreed to write a summary of that, too. I hope to be able >to do these things soon. > > >Regards, Martin.
Received on Friday, 30 May 2003 05:31:54 UTC