- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:17:22 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
At 07:27 05/04/05 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote: > > We can't change the recommendation as such, afaik. But we can record > > things in an Errata (see > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/errata#rdf-syntax-grammar) such that > > future WGs could pick up these issues and publish new WDs based on them. > > > > I'm not sure how much structure we have around review of errata text. > > Basically the problem falls back on the W3C Team, when there's no WG in > > place. In this case, we have a SW Coordination Group who meet weekly, > > I suggest the following plan of action: > > > > - someone (perhaps Dave, as the relevant spec Editor) draft an Errata > > section on this problem, citing the www-rdf-comments thread. > >I've made a start: >http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/errata#datatyped-empty-literals > >Suggestions/additions/fixes welcomed. I'm sorry to bang on about this due process thing, but I feel that, as drafted, the proposed text seems to say that there definitely is an error in the specification which I'd be reluctant to assert without wider consensus. I suggest: [[ Serialization of datatyped empty literals is not anticipated by the RDF/XML grammar. This is believed by several developers to be an omission in the grammar defined by the RDF/XML Syntax Specification: a bug was reported (and acknowledged by the editor), relating to the use of an rdf:datatype attribute on empty RDF properties. See the mailing list thread for technical details. ]] #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 16:16:41 UTC