- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 16:09:38 +0100
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dave, mostly looks good, I think. Two questions/comments. (1) >I've tried to capture the concensus on deprecation but I'm unsure if >it comes across in the above. Specifically, #3 and #4 seem to >clash. Do we allow unprefixed attributes for backwards comp. at all >in future or forbid them in the future? I think #4 and #5 together capture the issue for the current specification rev. We can leave future "generations" free to make the requisite choices for future spec revisions. I think #3 could be dropped. (2) >7. Unprefixed attributes not on The List have no meaning in RDF > and MUST NOT be used to generate statements. Applications MUST > skip the element containing such attributes and generate no > statements for the entire XML element and content. The first sentence of this is fine. I'm not sure of the implications of the second sentence. #g -- At 02:47 PM 5/24/01 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote: >Previous threads can be followed from > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0087.html > >I propose we resolve: > >1. The current RDF/XML syntax uses the following attributes in the syntax: > > about aboutEach aboutEachPrefix > ID bagID > resource > parseType > -- List of RDF attributes (henceforth The List) > > The remaining concepts are not in the list because: > a. Seq Bag Alt Property Statement > These are rdfs:Class-es and can never be used as attributes > b. RDF Description > Syntax only things that have no current use as attributes > c. li _<n> subject predicate object type value > Not allowed to be used unprefixed according to the grammar > > Note Re: aboutEach aboutEachPrefix > At present it is expected these will be removed from the > specification although the WG has not addressed this yet. > See thread at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0123.html > >2. The grammar will be corrected to require namespace-qualification > for all attributes for The List. A namespace prefix MUST be used > for these attributes, where the namespace prefix points to the > RDF URI http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# > > The meaning of the attributes is defined by the appropriate RDF > M&S sections and is not modified here. > > The changes to the grammar at > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#grammar > include modifying productions 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.11, 6.18, > 6.32, 6.33 to have rdf: added before all the attributes. There > are almost certainly other changes to the grammar, as well as > changes throughout the rest of the document such as examples and > in-text mentions. > >3. Unprefixed attributes are deprecated - they SHOULD NOT be used in > the syntax from this date and WILL be forbidden in the next RDF > syntax document. > >4. On input, unprefixed attributes from The List MAY be accepted. > If accepted, these attributes MUST be handled as if they were > written with a prefix as defined in #2. > >5. On output, all RDF attributes from The List MUST be emitted with > a namespace prefix; where the prefix is defined as in #2. > >6. The grammar will be corrected to allow non-namespace > qualified RDF elements (NOT attributes) when a default XML > namespace is defined with an xmlns="..." attribute. > > Discussion: For example > <Description xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> > ... > </Description> > is currently forbidden by production 6.3; it requires rdf:Description > >7. Unprefixed attributes not on The List have no meaning in RDF > and MUST NOT be used to generate statements. Applications MUST > skip the element containing such attributes and generate no > statements for the entire XML element and content. > >I've tried to capture the concensus on deprecation but I'm unsure if >it comes across in the above. Specifically, #3 and #4 seem to >clash. Do we allow unprefixed attributes for backwards comp. at all >in future or forbid them in the future? > >Dave ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies Strategic Research Content Security Group <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <http://www.baltimore.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2001 12:15:43 UTC