- From: Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>
- Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 22:04:46 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 09.05.2012 21:44, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Thanks for the comments! It's great to get such quick feedback on the new text :-) I monitor the repo very often. :-) >> We have two comments regarding the rdf:XMLLiteral datatype in [1]: >> 1. In the value space there is a typo. It is "DocumentFragments", but I think it should be "DocumentFragment". > > Where? The word is used twice: > > “The value space is a set of DOM DocumentFragments” > > “Two DocumentFragments A and B are considered equal if …” > > Plural seems correct in both cases. Yes, but in HTML you have: <code>DocumentFragments</code> but there isn't any "DocumentFragments" interface in DOM(3), but there is "DocumentFragment" interface. So HTML code should be something like this: .... a set of DOM <code>DocumentFragment</code>s.... .... Two <code>DocumentFragment</code>s A and B are considered equal if... > >> 2. In subsection 4.2 you refer to DOM3. Maybe a better idea would be to refer to DOM4 [2]? > > DOM4 is still a W3C Working Draft and not yet a W3C Recommendation. W3C policy is to avoid normative references to working drafts, to avoid situations where conforming implementations may become non-conforming when a normatively referenced work-in-progress spec changes. Exceptions are possible if there are good reasons, but AFAIK the definitions that we need from the DOM spec are fine as they are in DOM3. (RDF-WG is considering adding an HTML datatype, and in that case we'd probably reference the HTML5 Working Draft.) Thanks, this answer my comment. >> >> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/5d1f10084f79/rdf-concepts/index.html# >> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-dom-20120405/ >> >> Best regards, >> >> Dominik Tomaszuk
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 20:05:12 UTC