W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Latest iteration of RDF Datatyping WD

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:10:00 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020411170818.041143d0@joy.songbird.com>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 03:49 PM 4/11/02 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote:


>Patrick is "fully versed in XML 1.0".
>
>
>One minor point, you use local entity defs to simulate qnames in attr
>values.
>
>This is quite cute, but does go against this para in M&S:
>
>[[[
>Note: Schema developers may be tempted to declare the values of certain
>properties to use a syntax corresponding to the XML Namespace qualified name
>abbreviation. We advise against using these qualified names inside property
>values as this may cause incompatibilities with future XML datatyping
>mechanisms. Furthermore, those fully versed in XML 1.0 features may
>recognize that a similar abbreviation mechanism exists in user-defined
>entities. We also advise against relying on the use of entities as there is
>a proposal to define a future subset of XML that does not include
>user-defined entities.
>]]]
>
>
>I am happy to drop the intent of this paragraph - that seems to be a
>corollary of Patrick being "fully versed in XML 1.0" :).

But from your description, what Patrick is doing doesn't correspond to that 
part of the M&S recommendation cited.  I certainly found that, when doing 
CC/PP, using local entity defs was very useful if not particularly elegant.

I also think that well-chosen entity definitions make the document _way_ 
more readable.

#g



-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 12:12:43 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:25 EDT