> The issues are all clearly very complicated, but the pointers you provide > seem to elaborate on how fragment identifiers are ineffective for discussing > portions of resources -- the same conclusion that led Roy not to define them > as such. > > I still believe your terminology definitions were the first to point out the > actually incompatibility in the specs. Roy, do you have an earlier citation? TimBL mentioned it at the beginning of the thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Feb/0171.html I am pretty sure that Dan and I, or Henrik and I, or maybe all three of us, discussed it at some point in person long before that. I was not involved in the discussions of RDF. ....RoyReceived on Friday, 25 May 2001 21:24:07 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:30 UTC