W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2003

RE: pfps-06 hold off?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:28:17 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B02630233@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <phayes@ihmc.us>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext pat hayes [mailto:phayes@ihmc.us]
> Sent: 27 August, 2003 04:16
> To: Brian McBride
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: pfps-06 hold off?
> >Pat,
> >
> >I'm wondering whether we should hold off your following up 
> pfps on pfps-06 as:
> >
> >   1) the xml schema lex 2 val mapping may be about to change

Honestly, Brian, I'm wondering how this could happen. We do
not define the XML Schema L2V mapping, and the XML Schema
specs are quite clear that the L2V mapping does *not* include
whitespace processing, so I remain very puzzled at your
suggestion that this could change.

All that we could do ourselves would be to say that the RDF
L2V mapping, for XML Schema datatypes, includes the whitespace
processing, but such a position creates such blatant dependencies
and other nastiness in our design that simply thinking about
such a thing happening makes my ass start to twitch.

Can you please, if possible, clarify what basis you have for
suggesting that the XML Schema L2V mapping might change, or
that the RDF L2V mapping would not be the same for XML Schema
datatypes as defined by XML Schema?

The few comments that we have recieved from implementors regarding
the looseness of the Xerces implementation does not IMO even 
begin to justify any such changes.


Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2003 05:28:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:07 UTC