dehora wrote: > [...] > The worst case is > an old parser treating 'rdf:Resource' as 'Literal': I acknowledge that > interop would fail in this case where receiving software has not been > upgraded, but that would a software defect rather than a spec defect. > Asking implementers to inspect parseType attribute value strings > containing ':' and check against the qualified name for the RDF > namespace is a simple enough task, certainly no harder that checking the > attribute itself for namespace qualification, which we're already asking > people to do. It's a small change, but not one that I think can be reasonably read into the RDF 1.0 spec. We're not designing RDF 1.0; we're clarifying the spec, right? If/when we get around to designing, I'll suggest that we replace rdf:parseType with xsi:type (from XML Schema) wholesale. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 08:50:36 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:39:46 EDT