- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 08:36:26 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 16:49 09/09/03 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote: >I think it is important to document that WG members have, offline and >on, given thoughtful consideration to alternative designs and the >(not always immediately obvious) ramifications for the rest of our >design and those (such as OWL's) that depend on it. In the spirit of documenting what WG members have considered offline... I am NOT by this message making a proposal to change the design. However, IF it turns out that the current design is not accepted because of I18N objections, or we feel this is a likely outcome, THEN I do intend to propose the design alternative mentioned. I would like to record that I have thought about restricting the function of parseType=Literal to be purely syntactic, along the lines indicated in [1] (also described earlier, with some embellishment, by Patrick [2]), and have not become aware of any fundamental problem with it. I believe it results in a cleaner design that we currently have. I did not promote this because at the time it occurred to me we were trying to understand the underlying I18N requirements in relation to the existing design, and I felt introduction of an alternative design would muddy the debate, and would likely lead to delayed completion of the WGs work. #g -- [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0113.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0165.html ------------ Graham Klyne GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2003 04:07:24 UTC