On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Thomas Baker wrote:
> I am in favor of investigating the possibilities of option 3, but it is
> not clear to me what we should do about it right now unless a volunteer
> steps forward to track this issue.
I'll make some attempts to get a technical view about 3) - but I probably
won't give it very high priority!
> Are we in fact all in agreement that "stand-alone" names should be used
> in future for element refinements? (PLEASE RESPOND.)
Yes, I am.
> If so, do we
> need to capture this policy somewhere in our documentation?
Yes, I suggest so.
This probably has implications for other recommendations. If element
refinement names are treated as stand-alone in the qualified DC RDF
recommendation (which they are), then they could/should probably/possibly
be treated as stand-alone names in the qualified DC HTML recommendation?
I.e., should we see
<meta name="DCQ.created" scheme="W3CDTF" content="2001-06-15">
in HTML meta tags?
Andy
--
Distributed Systems and Services
UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK [log in to unmask]
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell Voice: +44 1225 323933
Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/ Fax: +44 1225 826838
|