- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:41:44 +0000
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At this stage of the game, if we choose to make any substantive changes in response to these comments I think they should be simple excisions. I could see removing the preference for the first Alt as an excision. Or simply removing Alt all together? There's nothing special about rdf:Alt that users couldn't define their own vocabulary for it. (Personally, I think Alt is rather like the human appendix: of little practical value and a potential source of inflammation.) #g -- At 10:41 06/11/03 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >If we are short of things to discuss, the I18N comment that is still brewing >surfaced here > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-i18n-ig/2003Nov/0008.html > >(member only link) > >I find the Alt argument the most interesting of the things we haven't seen >before; it would be interesting to know if the WG would be happy to make the >change Martin suggests (no default, all items have equal weight) > >I understand that they have asked for an extension, so this looks critical >path given the good status of the rest of the comments .... > >The other comments either are editorial or the expected substantive comments >on XMLLiteral. > >If we have a full agenda we should hold off discussing this comment until it >is made. > > > > > This is the usual weekly call for agenda items. > > > > Suggestions to the list please. > > > >Jeremy ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 05:55:23 UTC