On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:01:55 -0800, Paul Hoffman / IMC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The following are dropped for lack of support:
No objections there - I, and probably others abstained from commenting on this batch, as the new proposals were in the pipeline. > It's not all negative. PaceExtensionConstruct got a good bit of > discussion and was heavily revised by its author in response. I think > this has a good chance of being accepted after another round of > discussion. That discussion should happen *soon* while we are still > thinking about the extension mechanisms we want. Recycle with the new > wording. Yep. I expect Henry's AtomAsRDF/AtomOWL will have been refactored too, I would think it appropriate to include that/those in the same round. (If I get this last doc rewrite finished this morning, I might even have chance to look at this stuff properly myself ;-) Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
