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

Re: SYNTAX: RDF/XML Syntax WD work

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:48:28 -0500
Message-ID: <3BCDA84C.5C0814C7@w3.org>
To: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
CC: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Art Barstow wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 05:00:12PM +0100, Dave Beckett wrote:
[...]
> > I have also added the RelaxNG schema into an appendix and I want to
> > also add Jeremy's XSLT mapping to the document.
> 
> As I've stated before I like the apparent simplicity and clarity
> of the RelaxNG non-XML schema.  I do wonder, however, how we verify
> this schema or any other schemas that may be added to Appendix D
> (the document says XML Schema and Schematron are TODOs).  It seems
> like the schemas in Appendix D should explicitly state whether or
> not they are normative.  Also, do we really need to provide more
> than one schema; what about just pointing to the work of James and
> Rick instead of including their work in the document?

I prefer a pointer.

I think it's great work, but when I looked at it, I found
at least one bug in the relax-ng thingy; I haven't even
found time to report it.

I'm happy to have it copied into our WD only if, say,
three members of this WG are willing to vouch for it;
i.e. to say "yes, I've looked at it and it agrees
with the rest of the spec".

I could live with copying it into the WD only with
a strong disclaimer ala "this may have bugs. We're
pretty sure it does have bugs. But it's nifty, so
we're including it here so folks can help us work
out the bugs." Of course, that's pretty close
to a commitment to address any comments made
on this relax-NG schema. Dave, are you prepared
to address such comments?

[...]

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 11:48:31 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:41:05 EDT