W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > November 2002

RE: Guide: draft of Oct 31

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 16:58:43 -0600
Message-ID: <B8E84F4D9F65D411803500508BE3221411982AFD@USPLM207>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Ah.  Good catch.  Fixed as we speak.  Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:34 PM
To: Smith, Michael K
Cc: Mike Dean; webont
Subject: RE: Guide: draft of Oct 31

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
> the particular server/client pairing.  So I am inclined to leave
> the suffixes in.


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#

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/
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 17:58:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:37 UTC