- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 01 Nov 2002 16:39:39 -0600
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>, Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 16:33, Dan Connolly wrote: > > On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 16:10, Smith, Michael K wrote: > > > > Regarding Mime types and content negotiation. > > > > I want to present examples that will work without reference to oops; maybe I read too fast... is this about extensions on example files? If it's about the owl.rdf file, my show-stopping objection stands. > > the particular server/client pairing. So I am inclined to leave > > the suffixes in. > > No. > > Sorry I don't have time to elaborate just now, but this is > a show-stopping objection. > > To leave the suffixes in would be counter > to our decision > > ========= > excerpt from http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf3.html > > PROPOSED: to use for the namespace name: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl# > RESOLVED > > ACTION Connoly to get the above OK'd by the W3C webmaster/director; > ACTION Dean to update the reference document > ========= > > > > Is there somewhere I could point the reader > > so that they can understand the issues/advantages of using > > content negotiation? > > For now, please put some sort of "NOTE: explain > this better next time" editorial note. > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ office: tel:+1-913-491-0501 mobile: mailto:connolly+pager@w3.org
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 17:39:27 UTC