- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:48:26 +0000
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-archive@w3.org>
At 09:12 AM 1/30/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> > I find this completely non sequitur.
> >
> > If any show stopper can be removed by introduction of a different show
> > stopper, that doesn't mean there are no show stoppers.
>
>I'm not sure I follow you there. Both Dan and Sergey in their "can't
>live with S" postings focused primarily on the fact that because TDL
>presumed untidy literal nodes, it was fundamentally broken. I.e.
OK, let's back up. The original show stopper in this case was, in my view,
the lack of self-entailment of a document, which was in turn a consequence
of the treatment of untidy literal nodes.
Jeremy offered a proposal that overcame the self-entailment problem, but
which required a fundamental change to the handling of RDF (relative to at
least DanC's and my understanding).
The non sequitur here is:
Proposal A is broken for reason of problem B.
Proposal C fixes problem B
=> Proposal A+C is not broken.
Roughly, you have to consider the wider picture, you can't just pick off
problems in isolation.
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
__
/\ \
/ \ \
/ /\ \ \
/ / /\ \ \
/ / /__\_\ \
/ / /________\
\/___________/
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 05:35:44 UTC