- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:12:50 -0400
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Jeremy quoted 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. > ]]] > >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? Are we really giving advice here, or just covering our asses? Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 17:12:53 UTC