W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2001

Re: use cases for Literal? RSS? Dublin Core? PRISM? DAML? XAP?

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 17:38:56 +0100
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc: dehora <dehora@eircom.net>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <17185.1003163936@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Dan Connolly said:
> dehora wrote:

<snip size="lots"/>

Firstly, rdf:parseType="Literal" is staying in this RDF/XML syntax.


> > Old text: Section 3.1
> > 
> > "6.34 literal any well-formed XML "
> > 
> > new text:
> > 
> > "6.34 literal any XML"
> 
> new text:
> 	"6.34 literal any well-formed XML content, in the
> 	sense of the content production in the XML grammar."

[6.x sections have been moved to appendix in current WD editors copy]

> 
> > Old text: section 4.20
> > 
> > "4.20 Production literal (was 6.34 literal)
> > Any non-empty well-formed XML."
> > 
> > New text:
> >
> > "4.20 Production literal (was 6.34 literal)
> > Any non-empty XML."
> 
> new text:
> 
>   "4.20 Production literal (was 6.34 literal)
>   Any non-empty XML content."
> 
> 
> Dave, do you agree this is a simple editorial fix? If so,
> please make it (or something like it). Or do you
> think it's a substantive issue that the WG should consider?


I see this as an editorial change and I am going to do this.

Firstly, I'm likely to merge the empty/non-empty cases and remove
"non-empty".

Secondly, what is allowed (implicitly) is anything that is legal for
the content of an XML element, according to the XML rules, rather
than just well-formed.  I will replace the 4.20 words with something
like that.

The reference Dan pointed out (in the elided bit of the quote above)
in XML section 4.3.2 Well-Formed Parsed Entities looks like something
worth referencing:

  An internal general parsed entity is well-formed if its replacement
  text matches the production labeled content.

  [...] 

  [43]   content  ::= CharData? ((element | Reference | CDSect
                            | PI | Comment) CharData?)*

  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#wf-entities
  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#NT-content


Editors draft is at
  http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/

I haven't yet merged this in; been working on updating the N-Triples
section of http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/

Dave
Received on Monday, 15 October 2001 12:38:59 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:41:03 EDT