Re: <rdf:li> as a typed node

I support zapping this - well I suggested it to Brian!

>>>Graham Klyne said:
> Yes, I agree.  This is a rather bizarre case.

+1

> (Would it be easiest on implementers to say that the effect of using rdf:li 
> as a typednode is undefined?)

Since we previously said in earlier test cases that it was allowed, I
prefer to make the existing test case an error.rdf rather than delete
it from the list of approved tests.

This change shouldn't break earlier code since rdf:li as an element
name was not explicitly in the old grammar (except by matching the
old typedNode) and the feedback from the probably, only, implementors
who looked at the change is the reason we are junking it!

Dave

Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 16:48:04 UTC