- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 12:54:43 -0500
- To: dehora <dehora@eircom.net>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
dehora wrote: > > Dan: > "[...] > That suggests, to me, that we should chuck it, like > we did aboutEachPrefix... but only if nobody's using it." > > Jeremy: > "I would not be opposed to deleting parseType="Literal"" > > I wouldn't either (deleting all xml attributes pertaining to literals > would be a mercy killing at this point), but for my edification, can > someone please tell me how we got from insisting that proposals on this > attribute be backwards compatible to dropping it? Yes, this merits some discussion... > If I'd known that > dropping the thing was a backwards compatible option, I'd have suggested > as much a month ago :) Compatibility is only valuable if there's something out there to be compatible with. Note that our charter is rather carefully worded to put a value on compatibility with *existing RDF applications*, not just words in the spec: "Backwards compatibility with existing RDF applications is a priority for the RDF Core Working Group." -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCoreWGCharter In the case of parseType="Literal", the spec is sloppy, and the implementations don't agree, so I'm looking for some sense of what this construct is supposed to do for the users. If they don't know, then it's not worth keeping. > Aside: > Some of parseType="Literal" examples I see are illegal as wf XML. Yes, well-formed is a misnomer. "XML content" or, to borrow from the XML fragment interchange spec, "well-balanced XML content" would be better. > So not only are these processors all over the map, they don't know what > well formed XML is. Of the literal test cases, only test004 is legal > XML-RDF. No, I think the tests are fine; the spec is just sloppy. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Saturday, 13 October 2001 13:54:46 UTC