- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:57:07 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > > > Brian McBride wrote: > [...] > > It was suggested that parseType="Literal" could be dropped but Ron > > Daniel and Eric Miller spoke up that there are users who use it. It > > was suggested that the parser adding namespace definitions to the > > literal might break an XML signature. Concern was raised over entities > > in the literal. After discussion it was concluded that we needed to > > investigate the applicability of the XML fragments spec. > > That's unclear, if not inaccurate. > > I, for one, did not agree that we *need* to investigate > the applicability of the XML fragments spec; as I said, > there's a perfectly reasonable design (using triples all the > way down) that does not depend on XML fragments in any way. > > Moreover, I don't recall the chair actually explicitly asking > that question of the group. I have reviewed the IRC log for that segment of the meeting and can find no support there for a statement that the WG reached any conclusion. I'll amend the last sentence you quote to: The existence of the xml fragments work was noted. unless you have a preferred alternative wording. Brian
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 08:00:07 UTC