Re: Internal DTD Examples Invalidate the RDF/XML Documents

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> I think we are talking past each other around the DTD principle and what constitutes an out-of-band agreement.  It doesn't matter.
> 


Yes, I was getting that impression.  Oh well...


> I am completely aligned with your proposed action.


Good.  In any event, I think you were right that this deserves some 
clarification.

--Frank


> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- Dennis
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Manola [mailto:fmanola@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 11:11
> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Internal DTD Examples Invalidate the RDF/XML Documents
> 
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> However, all that notwithstanding, I've taken an editorial action to try 
> to make this more explicit in the Primer.  What I propose to do is:
> 
> a.  In the example in section 3 where entities are first introduced, 
> briefly note that the use of a document type declaration here is just to 
> declare entities (and not to provide a complete syntactic specification 
> for RDF/XML), that the use of entities (and document type declarations) 
> is optional, and that this does *not* mean that RDF/XML can be validated 
> by a validating XML processor.  And then point the reader to Appendix B.
> 
> b.  In Appendix B, get into somewhat more detail (but not much);  in 
> particular, briefly mention the difference between well-formed and valid 
> XML, note that RDF/XML only has to be well-formed, that for various 
> reasons (not just the QName point you mentioned) it's hard to write a 
> DTD for full RDF/XML, and hence XML validation is generally not expected.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> --Frank
> 
> 
> 
>>	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
>>
>>Meanwhile, I think I need to look at XML 1.0 and 1.1 more carefully and see whether this is a conversation that I should take up on an XML list. I will also look at the WS-I work to see if this kind of disconnect is a concern or not in the profiles for interoperability.
>>
>>
> [ ... ]
> 
>>-- Dennis.
>>
> [ ... ]
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Saturday, 4 October 2003 11:24:49 UTC