- From: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:30:22 -0400
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 02:47:07PM +0100, Dave Beckett wrote: > I propose we resolve: Thanks for enumerating the changes Dave! I agree with #1, #2 and #6. WRT #5: > 5. On output, all RDF attributes from The List MUST be emitted with > a namespace prefix; where the prefix is defined as in #2. Given #2, and the existing grammar, a RDF serializer would emit illegal syntax if it did not add a namespace prefix to all RDF attributes so I don't see need to add this sentence to the spec. [Alternatively, it be stated in a non-normative Appendix of implementor's notes.] WRT #3 and #7 they address the question - what should be done with unprefixed attributes that are not in The List or not other RDF attributes (e.g. li, _<n>, aboutEach*): > 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. > > 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. "attributes" in #3 and #7 are propAttr's in the grammar, and those attributes are not required to have a namespace prefix: [6.10] propAttr ::= typeAttr | propName '="' string '"' (with embedded quotes escaped) [6.11] typeAttr ::= ' type="' URI-reference '"' [6.14] propName ::= Qname [6.19] Qname ::= [ NSprefix ':' ] name Also, there is a warning in the spec regarding property names: [[ It is recommended that property names always be qualified with a namespace prefix to unambiguously connect the property definition with the corresponding schema. ]] We could argue about how useful a propName with no NSprefix is but there is probably lots of RDF with such propNames. And they were warned! So, I would not add #3 or #7 to the spec. I most certainly would not add the second sentence in #7. WRT #4: > 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. I'm torn here between the pragmatic position that DanC gave in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0172.html and a sense that we need to be sensitive to the BC issue we might create. Art ---
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2001 13:30:26 UTC