- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 19:01:00 +0100
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, 'Richard Cyganiak' <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: 'RDF Working Group WG' <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Markus, Richard, all, Nice, let's do it this way. I quote the proposal below to make everybody aware. This proposal replaces the one voted on during the telecon. I assume this falls under the leeway that the resolution of today gave the editors and the chairs. Guus 1. rdf:HTML and rdf:XMLLiteral are marked as non-normative 2. Wording changes: In the sections rdf:HTML and rdf:XMLLiteral, add: [[ This datatype is defined as non-normative because it depends on [DOM4], a specification that has not yet reached W3C Recommendation status. ]] In Section 5.4, REPLACE this: [[ Recognized IRIs have fixed referents, which must satisfy these conditions: If the IRI http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral is recognized then it refers to the datatype rdf:XMLLiteral If the IRI http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#HTML is recognized then it refers to the datatype rdf:HTML […] ]] with this: [[ Recognized IRIs have fixed referents, which must satisfy these conditions: […] Furthermore, the following IRIs are allocated for non-normative datatypes: The IRI http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral refers to the datatype rdf:XMLLiteral The IRI http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#HTML refers to the datatype rdf:HTML ]] On 18-12-13 18:30, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 6:20 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> Markus, >> >> As I said, my preferred option is the one that the WG +1'd today: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Dec/0283.html >> >> But in the interest of having alternatives for the transition meeting, >> here's another option that I could live with. >> >> On 17 Dec 2013, at 20:28, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: >>> I can't live with the complete removal of the HTML and XMLLiteral >>> IRIs from that section. Readers will go to the section on "datatype >>> IRIs" and to the definition of "recognized datatype IRI" to look for >>> the requirements regarding datatype support, and can expect to find all >>> datatype IRIs assigned by the RDF specs mentioned there. > > Sorry, I missed that mail. I assumed you can't live without the MUST > statement in that section. > > >>> I also think that omitting rationale for the non-normativity of the >>> two datatypes would be a mistake, as it sends a wrong message. > > +1 > > >>> I've stated what I believe is the cleanest way to avoid these two >>> problems, so will just repeat the link: >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Dec/0260.html >>> >>> I suppose it could also be done by adding a couple of notes to all >> the affected subsections. >> >> In the sections rdf:HTML and rdf:XMLLiteral, add: >> >> [[ >> This datatype is defined as non-normative because it depends on [DOM4], >> a specification that has not yet reached W3C Recommendation status. >> ]] > > +1 > > >> In Section 5.4, REPLACE this: >> >> [[ >> Recognized IRIs have fixed referents, which must satisfy these >> conditions: >> >> If the IRI http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral is >> recognized then it refers to the datatype rdf:XMLLiteral >> If the IRI http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#HTML is >> recognized then it refers to the datatype rdf:HTML >> [.] >> ]] >> >> with this: >> >> [[ >> Recognized IRIs have fixed referents, which must satisfy these >> conditions: >> >> [.] >> >> Furthermore, the following IRIs are allocated for non-normative >> datatypes: >> >> The IRI http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral refers to >> the datatype rdf:XMLLiteral >> The IRI http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#HTML refers to the >> datatype rdf:HTML >> ]] > > +1, I would be very happy with something. It would allows us to keep the > datatypes non-normative and defining their value space and l2v mapping > correctly instead of being forced to say they are > "implementation-dependent". I think this would also make the transition call > much smoother. > > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > >
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 18:01:26 UTC