- From: Hassan Aït-Kaci <hak@ilog.com>
- Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 08:54:22 -0700
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- CC: "Boley\, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Michael Kifer wrote: >> Michael Kifer wrote: >>> XML does not understand curie macros, so rif:iri is just that for XML. >>> In the presentation syntax, rif:iri is not a "rif:iri" but a macro that >>> expands into something long. So, the earlier use of rif:iri and similar in >>> XML was actually a mistake. >> OK. So you mean to say, "... HAS BEEN actually a mistake" (and still >> IS as far I understand). Correcting this simple mistake is easy then. >> How come it has not been fixed in all the BLD documents and examples >> after the resolution was passed 6 months ago? How many other such >> "mistakes" remain in the current BLD draft that should be so corrected? >> My question is a very pragmatic one: I am trying to implement the dang >> thing. > > You can help find mistakes by volunteering to be a reviewer. Thanks for your thoughtful suggestion... But what do you think all this mail originates from? My listening to the radio? I have also volunteered to automate the process to ease the pain of handwriting all this XML code with some consistency. But perhaps is this a diversion that would not really of any use? > --michael -hak -- Hassan Aït-Kaci * ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D http://koala.ilog.fr/wiki/bin/view/Main/HassanAitKaci
Received on Saturday, 3 May 2008 15:54:28 UTC