- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:23:39 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 13:42, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 12:21, Brian McBride wrote: [...] > > I've taken into account feedback from DanC, which includes stating the > > conflicting requirements on the datatypes objection and some (much > > shorter) text on the I18N issue. > > Umm... this looks OK (except the "we request..." sentence, about > which more below), but the shorter text was intended for > the request for PR. I'd prefer to see the table of > designs that the WG evaluated in the issues list under > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure Brian, in order to be responsive to the I18N LC2 review, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0120.html I think it's best to have the whole story there. Shall I go ahead and put it there? Do you have any pending edits since Revision 1.216 2003/11/11 19:59:19 ? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 13:26:22 UTC