- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 15:48:42 +0100
- To: Ken Baclawski <kenb@ccs.neu.edu>
- CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Hi Ken, Ken Baclawski wrote: > I agree that it is useful to anticipate future extensions, but not at the > cost of making the current specification inconsistent. This is an issue that has come up before, and the spec clearly needs clarification. Can you point me to the text where M&S specifically says that parseType values other than Resource and Literal are allowed. A reference to the paragraph numbered version of the spec at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part is helpful. A paragraph reference can be created by adding #para-num to that URL. Brian
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2001 10:40:42 UTC