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

Re: RDF XML Syntax doc proposed changes / issues

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 13:54:19 +0000
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-ID: <16931.1039096459@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Brian McBride said:
> At 15:05 04/12/2002 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote:
> >* 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?

Not that I've seen; your suggestion above was the last thing in the
thread of comments.

> >* 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.

OK.  Not changing.

> >* 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.

Yeah, I'll go with that.  It'll just give the differences I outlined
in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Dec/0032.html
plus any others (probably minor wordsmithing)

Dave
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 08:57:14 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:49 EDT