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

Re: RDF XML Syntax doc proposed changes / issues

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:59:16 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021205095511.055b8218@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com

At 15:05 04/12/2002 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote:


>This is my list of things I'm proposing to do for the last call draft
>updating http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20021108
>for a new version for this Friday 6th according to our schedule.


[...]


>Issues:
>
>* Add some form of canonicalisation words?
>
>   I prefer something lightweight like Brian suggested:
>
>   [[This specification allows an implementation some freedom to
>   choose exactly what string it will use as the lexical form of an
>   XML Literal.  Whatever string an implementation uses , its
>   canonicalization (without comments, as defined in ...) must be the
>   same as the same canonicalization of the literal text l.  A minimal
>   implementation is to use l without change.
>   ]]
>
>   This has been suggested to go in
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#parseTypeLiteralPropertyElt
>   to replace the last sentence.

Fine by me.  Did Jeremy suggest a variation on this wording?


>* change the title?
>
>   This was partially from the forms suggested in W3C manual of style
>   which is optional anyway http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/ and the
>   proposed change was to call it "Resource Description Framework
>   (RDF): XML Syntax" I think.  I'm neutral-to-slightly against, but
>   I'm happy to leave the last word on this to Brian.

I'd support your slightly against.  I think we are in a phase where we only 
make changes when we have good reason to.


>
>* Appendix C changes - delete?
>
>   I think this is useful to keep; or at least keep the changes from
>   between WDs here, linking to previous changes sections.  It is
>   going to stay at the moment.

I support having a changes section.  I think its a mandatory courtesy to 
help those who have reviewed an earlier draft in detail, unless the changes 
are such that a complete re-read is necessary.

I might suggest just documenting the changes between this WD and the last, 
but its not a big deal.

Brian
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 04:57:51 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:48 EDT