W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Issues concerning parseType

From: Ken Baclawski <kenb@ccs.neu.edu>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:39:40 -0400 (EDT)
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010804110711.6590A-100000@steam>
Here is the URL:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#203

This paragraph contains these two sentences:

"Other values of parseType are reserved for future specification by RDF.
With RDF 1.0 other values must be treated as identical to 'Literal'."

Ken Baclawski
Ken@Baclawski.com

On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Brian McBride wrote:

> Hi Ken,
> 
> Ken Baclawski wrote:
> 
> > I agree that it is useful to anticipate future extensions, but not at the
> > cost of making the current specification inconsistent.
> 
> This is an issue that has come up before, and the spec clearly needs
> clarification.  Can you point me to the text where M&S specifically says
> that parseType values other than Resource and Literal are allowed.  A
> reference to the paragraph numbered version of the spec at:
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part
> 
> is helpful. A paragraph reference can be created by adding #para-num to
> that URL.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2001 12:39:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:28 GMT