Re: XML infoset conformance -- new issue?

Dan,

I agree that it would be good to get work on this started.  Art?

Brian


Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> 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
>   considerd."
> 
>   -- 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
> grammar.
> 
> 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 Thursday, 24 May 2001 03:25:58 UTC