- From: Chris Waterson <waterson@netscape.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 09:44:13 -0700
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
- CC: edd@xmlhack.com
Edd Dumbill raises an interesting question in: news://news.mozilla.org/8eeee1%24pgg2%40secnews.netscape.com Specifically related to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0019.html The Schema and Syntax specification has some inconsistencies between the "Formal Grammar". Specifically, rules [6.6] through [6.9], [6.11], and [6.18] are not consistent with the examples used throughout the document to illustrate RDF/XML. The differences seems to stem from a misunderstanding of how XML namespaces apply to attributes. What approaches have people taken with their RDF/XML parsers? Although Mozilla is currently "strict" in this regard, I'm leaning towards the addage of being liberal with the input that we accept, and treating (e.g.) <foo:bar rdf:resource="baz" /> as really meaning: <foo:bar resource="baz" />. Comments? thanks, chris
Received on Saturday, 29 April 2000 12:48:18 UTC