- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 21:02:16 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
- CC: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org> wrote:
>> Perhaps something like:
>>
>> [[
>> Unqualified elements and attributes in RDF are discouraged
>> ]]
>>
>> would be better.
>
> Hmmm... sounds like a fudge to me. If there is a problem with unqualified
> attributes, then I think we'd do better to disallow them; (maybe use
> language like "... MUST generate namespace qualifiers, but MAY/SHOULD
> recognize unqualified attributes"?)
Sorry for responding so late, your mail got lost in my inbox somehow...
Anyway, the result from the telecon[1] felt even fudgier to me:
RESOLVED: We'll strongly recommend the use of namespace qualified
attributes, and allow but deprecate unqualified attributes.
Afterwards, DanC asked[2]:
stronly deprecate"???? I wonder what that means. Does the test pass or
not?
I think that if we decide to come up with some system of conformance to the
new spec, unqualified attributes should not conform, but I think the
practice should be noted and processors should be allowed to support it for
backwards-compatibility.
Hmm, this tightrope-walking bit is tricky.
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/att-0017/01-2001-
04-27.html
[2] http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2001-04-27.html#T15-01-10
--
[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2001 22:02:26 UTC