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

Re: SYNTAX: RDF/XML Syntax WD work

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:25:22 +0100
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20272.1003335922@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Dan Connolly said:
> Art Barstow wrote:
> > ...  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.

Two votes for a pointer - I'm changing it and adding links to
the schematron one too, adding non normative words.

> 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 can't vouch for it at this time.

> 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?

No.  I also have to ask James' permission to include it.

Change made to
  http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Schemas

as of CVS version 1.72 or later

Dave
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 12:25:23 EDT

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