On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 09:35:44AM +0100, Jan Grant wrote: > On Fri, 18 May 2001, Art Barstow wrote: > > > However, I'm wondering if you were trying to differentiate the > > following as being illegal syntax by [6.12]: > > > > a. <random:someProperty rdf:parseType="Literal"/> > > > > and the following as being legal: > > > > b. <random:someProperty rdf:parseType="Literal"></random:someProperty> > > Nope. I've always considered them to be equivalent. > > > My take on [6.12] is that a. is not legal and b. is legal. If > > this is true, I don't understand why there is this restriction > > and would propose that both be legal. > > This restriction shouldn't exist; I'm not aware of any parsers that > enforce it - both should be legal an equivalent. Hi Jan, Good I think we agree on this. However, since whether a. implies b. has been an issue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0128.html perhaps the text should specifically state that they are considered equivalent. Art ---Received on Monday, 21 May 2001 09:36:59 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:35:50 EDT