- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:05:02 -0700
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk> wrote: > [Hmm, looking at the timestamp, it was sent 3 minutes into our last > meeting :-) ] [Actually, that's because the telecon was the first time my machine had an Internet connection that day, so all my unsent mail went out.] >>> 7. Unprefixed attributes not on The List have no meaning in RDF >>> and MUST NOT be used to generate statements. Processors MUST >>> also skip the element containing such attributes and generate no >>> statements for the entire XML element and content. >>> >>> This is to explicitly say what is implict in the the BNF - unprefixed >>> attributes have never been allowed in RDF/XML grammar. I've gone a >>> bit further to say what to do when they are seen so that there is >>> so consistency in handling them. This means that all namespace >>> element/attribute prefixing is covered. >> >> I do not think that this extra step is necessary. Take the innocent mistake: >> >> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="..." xmlns="..." >> <rdf:Description title="Issues" author="Dave Beckett"> >> <type rdf:resource="http://example.org/#image" /> >> </rdf:Description> >> </rdf:RDF> > > This is too vague - please fill in the namespace URIs; are they both > to the RDF namespace URI or not? Sorry for not being clear, I can never remember the RDF namespace (especially offline) and hate typing it. (Hmm...) The idea was that the default namespace was Dublin Core (oops, author should have been creator -- sorry). > I also don't want RDF/N3 used > to explain RDF/XML in this forum - it confuses issues and moves the > discussion to what RDF/N3 means rather than RDF/XML. I'm using RDF/N3 to display triples, since it's a language that's easy to understand and has a parser. I'm trying not to use any of the advanced and unclear features of N3 like reification. > Either way, considering 'title' and 'author' - some parsers will > assume they are rdf: concepts due to implementing XML namespaces > wrong (the rdf: on rdf:Description does not pass to the attributes) > and hence could skip the element as it contains unknown RDF > attributes. Other processors might do all sorts of strange things > creating bare 'title' properties or maybe documentURI#title > properties. > > By writing a paragraph like the above, all this is precisely clear - > unprefixed attributes continue to not be allowed. I understand this -- what I don't see is why we can't state that they MUST be ignored, rather than destroying the whole chunk of RDF that contains them. >> Also, I too agree with Dan Connolly and would like to see the MUST changed >> to a MAY, so that processors may accept the incorrect version of the >> language for backwards compatibility, but it is not an accepted portion of >> the language. > > We discussed that subsequently during the meeting and agreed to make > the stronger deprecation point - deprecated now (SHOULD NOT) and tell > the developers so that they know it will be removed and forbidden > (MUST NOT) at next REC which is probably a year away. I do not see what this refers to in your proposal. What I was talking about was exactly the opposite: <q cite="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0087.html"> 3. On input, processors MUST accept unprefixed attributes from The List on any elements. These attributes must be processed as if they were written with a prefix as defined in #2. </q> This MUST should be changed to a MAY, so that processors need not accept documents with unprefixed attributes. RDF itself should remain strong, continuing to state that "A namespace prefix MUST be used for these attributes...". > In summary, based on what existing tools do and for consistency, item > 7 remains a good answer. I don't see that from your message. -- Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>| RSS Info <http://www.aaronsw.com> | <http://www.blogspace.com/rss/> AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237| news and information on the RSS format
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 12:05:09 UTC