- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:50:45 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>>>Jeremy Carroll said: > > At the teleconference, I got the impression that Dave was after feedback, so > here's some more :-). > > I do not believe that we have discussed the following issues (although I > have mentioned some privately to Dave). As such, it is appropriate that they > are not in the current WD; but I would hope they would be addressed before > the next WD. As such, I'll not respond to all of these now while I concentrate on getting out something to review. However: > 3: "(can be empty)" > ================== > This phrase occurs a couple of times and should be emphasised in the > supporting text, since XML does not allow this, i.e. the XML Infoset of the > document is missing the supposed text string rather than having an empty > text string as suggested by the grammar. Again, elegance and clarity of > exposition in my mind takes priority over having an exact correspondence > between the Infoset and the grammar. This was easy to fix by replacing the single place that it is used with the two alternatives - no element content and literal element content Done as of http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/ version 1.21 Dave
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2001 05:50:47 UTC