What's the problem exactly? The spec looks quite nice to me on the whole.
((Perfection would come with an OWL semantics as shown by RSS1.1, but otherwise it looks
ok.))
Henry Story
On 16 Mar 2005, at 16:17, Graham wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005, at 1:03 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
PaceHeadless. The chairs agree that both reads are reasonable, and are ok with this divergence.
The working group aren't. Revert PaceHeadless immediately.
Graham
