W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Comments about the rdf:XMLLiteral datatype

From: Gavin Carothers <gavin@topquadrant.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 14:30:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPqY83zTqvJv8pfYbK-u5XjwnMGPZXQnZNWzM4bXsna=kkRJ-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl> wrote:
> On 09.05.2012 21:44, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the comments! It's great to get such quick feedback on the new
>> text :-)
>
>
> I monitor the repo very often. :-)
>
>
>>> We have two comments regarding the rdf:XMLLiteral datatype in [1]:
>>> 1. In the value space there is a typo. It is "DocumentFragments", but I
>>> think it should be "DocumentFragment".
>>
>>
>> Where? The word is used twice:
>>
>> “The value space is a set of DOM DocumentFragments”
>>
>> “Two DocumentFragments A and B are considered equal if …”
>>
>> Plural seems correct in both cases.
>
>
> Yes, but in HTML you have: <code>DocumentFragments</code> but there isn't
> any "DocumentFragments" interface in DOM(3), but there is "DocumentFragment"
> interface. So HTML code should be something like this:
> .... a set of DOM <code>DocumentFragment</code>s....
> .... Two <code>DocumentFragment</code>s A and B are considered equal if...
>
>>
>>> 2. In subsection 4.2 you refer to DOM3. Maybe a better idea would be to
>>> refer to DOM4 [2]?
>>
>>
>> DOM4 is still a W3C Working Draft and not yet a W3C Recommendation. W3C
>> policy is to avoid normative references to working drafts, to avoid
>> situations where conforming implementations may become non-conforming when a
>> normatively referenced work-in-progress spec changes. Exceptions are
>> possible if there are good reasons, but AFAIK the definitions that we need
>> from the DOM spec are fine as they are in DOM3. (RDF-WG is considering
>> adding an HTML datatype, and in that case we'd probably reference the HTML5
>> Working Draft.)
>
>
> Thanks, this answer my comment.

Looking over the timeline for DOM4
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-dom-20120405/) it does in fact seem that
we are likely better off referencing it. The RDF recs and DOM4 should
be moving along a simalure timeline, and there isn't a hard
requirement to not refer to working drafts Both normalize and is
isEqualNode have more specific language and the DOM4 versions are
likely to be the implementations that users of RDF encounter.

>
>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/5d1f10084f79/rdf-concepts/index.html#
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-dom-20120405/
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Dominik Tomaszuk
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 21:30:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 21:30:48 GMT