- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:51:39 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
- CC: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
>>>jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com said: > 4.1. Infoset Notation > [...] > > + One or one of preceding term > ^^^more OK > [...] > > 4.4 Production description (was 6.3 description) > > element([namespace name]=rdf-ns, > > [local name]="Description", > > [attributes]=set(idAboutAttr?, bagIdAttr?, propertyAttr*), > > [children]=list()) > > | element([namespace name]=rdf-ns, > > [local name]="Description", > > [attributes]=set(idAboutAttr?, bagIdAttr?, propertyAttr*), > > [children]=list(propertyElt+)) > > I was wondering if there was any difference by saying > element([namespace name]=rdf-ns, > [local name]="Description", > [attributes]=set(idAboutAttr?, bagIdAttr?, propertyAttr*), > [children]=list(*)) > > and the same for 4.5 and 4.6 I actually expanded that from the more compact form and the reason for that is twofold. Firstly, empty elements in XML use a different form than elements with content and having this explict makes it clear which one are talking about. From an implementation point of view, the empty/non-empty cases are an important distinction. Secondly, we can use the answers from the empty-elements decisions that Jan wrote for property elements, to directly write down the answers to what statements are generated from the grammar: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-empty-property-elements but maybe in the next version Dave
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2001 10:51:40 UTC