- From: Matthew Wilson <matthew@mjwilson.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 11:02:58 +0100
- To: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, www-annotation@w3.org
At 04:20 05/05/01 -0400, Art Barstow wrote: >On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 08:49:23AM +0100, Matthew Wilson wrote: > > At 06:00 01/05/01 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote: > > > > >(Just a quick note to capture an idea that cropped up over lunch with > Marja) > > > > > >Our XML/RDF annotation vocabularies should capture the language primarily > > >used in any textual content within the annotation. For eg., as a > > >dc:language property of the annotation. > > > > Would current clients break if we started posting annotations with > > dc:language properties straightaway? > >The clients should not break if they were written properly. >If adding such a property to the RDF that encodes an annotation >breaks a client then the client doesn't understand a key feature >of RDF - its extensibility. > >Adding a new property to an annotation should not cause problems >for Amaya or the Annotea bookmarklets. Of course, these Annotea >clients may not do anything with the new property but they certainly >should not break. That's what I thought. I may experiment with this in Annozilla... Matthew
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2001 06:03:15 UTC