W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > May 2001

Re: XML infoset conformance -- new issue?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 12:05:54 -0500
Message-ID: <3B0A9C72.5B3CE9DD@w3.org>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
CC: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I agree with the gist of your suggestion, Graham,
but before anybody creates a new issue, I consider
this to fall under an existing issue:

  "Summary: The grammar in the RDF 1.0 spec is informal and
  should be replaced. Something based on XML Schema should be

  -- http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-formal-grammar

Has that issue reached sifficient priority that we
should attack it?

Art, if you'd be willing to own that issue, I'd be
willing to work with you on it.

But I'm also happy for a few other issues to be
addressed first; I have a ways to go before I'm
ready to suggest a replacement for the whole RDF

Graham Klyne wrote:
> Having just read through the XML infoset CR [1], which is commendably brief
> and to-the-point, I note in particular the section 3 that sets out
> requirements for other specifications to be conformant to this spec.
> I am thinking that, in redrafting the XML syntax of the RDF core, there may
> be value in making its relationship to XML infoset the primary definition

Quite; if we use XML Schema and/or XSLT for our formal
grammar, we get that for free (more or less).

> (hence keeping the RDF specification away from being caught up standard XML
> syntax issues -- such as empty property elements).  A direct BNF for
> RDF/XML could also be included for informational purposes if still required.
> #g
> --
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2001 13:06:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:00 UTC