W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > August 2005

Re: SPARQL Query Results XML Format: XML 1.1 [OK?]

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:44:45 +0100
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1123753485.16868.15.camel@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 08:55 -0400, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 10:35 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote:

...
> > The DAWG discussed this and how about we add a new paragraph based on
> > the words you give above to the results spec section 4 XML Schemas:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-XMLres-20050801/#schemas
> > 
> >   For XML 1.1 documents, the method described in
> >   *Processing XML 1.1 documents with XML Schema 1.0 processors*
> >   http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xml11schema10-20050511/
> >   MAY be used.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> > I'm wondering though, how making a REC-track doc point normatively
> > to a WG Note works?
> 
> This depends on how comfortable the group feels about normatively
> referencing a document that did not follow the REC-track. Since the WG
> Note is not a REc, your paragraph itself could be informative, thus
> making the referencing to the WG Note informative.

OK, so I'll propose to the WG that I add the words above as an
informative note in section 4 and then add a new informative reference
to the document to address your issue.  Would that satisfy your comment?

Thanks

Dave
Received on Thursday, 11 August 2005 09:44:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:49 GMT