RE: URI for language identifiers

Thanks Jeremy. This point has already been clarified at least
twice by me and once by Peter in this thread. I guess Bill
missed it.

Still, even though that section was struck, that does not mean
that the bulk of its content does not reflect a strong concensus
in the SW community and should not be taken to mean that its
content has been wholly rejected by the WG. It was strictly a
practical decision based on a tight schedule and the fact that,
albeit important to address, it was not critical to the rest
of the specs.

So to that end, Bill is quite correct in pointing out its
(continued) significance and I echo his advice to consider 
carefully what is said therein.
 
Cheers,

Patrick


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 03 April, 2003 15:26
> To: Bill de hÓra; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: RE: URI for language identifiers
> 
> 
> 
> > Agreed, but see: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Meaning,
> > (a normative section).
> 
> Not any more - it has been struck.
> (This was a WG decision in response to a last call issue and 
> subsequent
> discussion at the tech plenary).
> 
> Jeremy - co-editor
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 00:48:18 UTC