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

advising RDF users about &entities; [was: Latest iteration of RDF Datatyping WD]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 11 Apr 2002 12:33:51 -0500
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1018546432.32224.3332.camel@dirk>
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 11:38, Dave Beckett wrote:
> Graham said:
> > I also think that well-chosen entity definitions make the document _way_ 
> > more readable.
> I'd note that there is no equivalent paragraph in the syntax working
> draft and I've seen RDF/XML used in this way by several people for
> abbreviations.  Do we really think this is going to clash with XML?

Not in the timeframe we're working on. Leave the syntax WD as is.

The primer might make a note of the technique (since folks,
e.g. Graham, find it useful) and point to the postponed
issue about qnames in attribute values.

> (Aside: not that I like XML entities much anyway; we don't have to
> care about them since the Infoset mapping we use removes them.)

Indeed... the less our specs say about entities, the better,
for my purposes.

I consider the use of &rdfs; entity references in the datatypes
spec an editorial matter, for The Editor to choose, after considering
whatever advice from the WG he chooses to consider.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 13:34:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:57 UTC