- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 12:00:47 -0400
- To: Hassan Aït-Kaci <hak@ilog.com>
- 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? You asked "how many mistakes are there". I gave you the best advice I know for helping eliminate as many mistakes as possible. Your help with automating the process is noted and appreciated. --michael
Received on Saturday, 3 May 2008 16:01:24 UTC