Re: #rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity,#rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema

Art Barstow wrote:
[...]
> 
> The proposal:
> 
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Dec/0082.html
> 
> say:
> 
>  [[
> 
>   4. Proposal
>    ========
> 
>    1) Parsers MAY NOT implement the specific productions
>       6.25-6.31.  This has no effect on the language as
>       anything that matches these productions also matches
>       other productions in the grammar.
>  ]]
> 
> Are you [or Brian] saying this means that rules 6.25-6.31 will be
> removed?

The proposal was originally written before the WG was formed.  Hence
the langauge of MAY NOT, which recognised that as individuals we
didn't have the authority to change the spec, but pointing out that
if our proposal was accepted, the container specific productions
added nothing to the language.

In the context of the WG, I think we'd simply remove those productions
from the grammar ( and any references to them).

Brian