> From [log in to unmask] Mon Mar 4 20:37 MET 2002
> Mail-Followup-To: [log in to unmask]
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Disposition: inline
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i
> X-Uptime: 7:20pm up 61 days, 2:39, 5 users, load average: 0.08, 0.06, 0.02
> X-PGP-Key: http://chris.croome.net/pgp.html
> X-PGP-KeyID: 0x8BB2DE91
> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:37:44 +0000
> From: Chris Croome <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: RDF and xml:lang (Was Re: Guidelines for implementing Dublin
> Core in XML)
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Hi
>
> On Wed 27-Feb-2002 at 08:43:41 -0000, Pete Johnston wrote:
> >
> > Dave (and/or other RDF Core folks),
> >
> > Could you provide any pointers to what is the current thinking within
> > the RDF Core WG to how the language issue should be best addressed
> > please?
>
> This post from the www-rdf-interest list is interesting:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Mar/0028.html
One may also have a look at
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-xmllang
The issue is marked as "under discussion" -
Cheers,
rs
>
> Chris
>
> --
> Chris Croome <[log in to unmask]>
> web design http://www.webarchitects.co.uk/
> web content management http://mkdoc.com/
> everything else http://chris.croome.net/
>
|