- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:53:18 +0000
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>>>Brian McBride said: > Hi Dave, > > Dave said: > >Note the namespace isn't the one for the syntax: > > http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# > >but another one: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax > > Ahh - that explains something in his emails that I missed the significance > of. I think he perceives the namespace quoted in para 192 as a simple > error. He believes that the intent is that it should read: > > http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# > > I just checked the errata and no correction is there. So I feel it was not an error; but was a design choice, allowing a place (namespace) for future RDF syntax things to belong. Which has not been used yet, but can't be since as far as I know, it has not been implemented in most parsers. I vaguely remember one of the original RDF WG members describing this to me at some point. > >However, I feel we shouldn't keep Para 196 around on the grounds of > >insufficient use and (correct) implementation. This the first > >attempt at use I've ever seen and I don't remember seeing any parser > >that implemented this. > > > Is there a proposal covering this? Nope, but I would propose deleting it because of the reasons I gave: * Insufficient correct implementation * Insufficient correct use ".., I feel we shouldn't keep Para 196 around on the grounds of insufficient use and (correct) implementation. This the first attempt at use I've ever seen and I don't remember seeing any parser that implemented this." -- me, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0611.html plus the reasons Jeremy gave which including the following: * Defines ill-formed documents "I would support 'deleting' this paragraph. In particular I feel that the new specs should on principle not define the processing behaviour for ill-formed documents." -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0619.html which I also support. Plus on the grounds of general confusion if it was a typo. Dave
Received on Monday, 26 November 2001 10:56:31 UTC