- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:37:02 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>>>Jeremy Carroll said: > > > > I have had a look over revision 1.67 and wanted to make a few points > about the syntactic rules. I said I hadn't started hacking that section so, I'm answering quickly > > > > Left-to-right priority A | B | ... > ================================== In short: I'm deleting this. It was a last minute pre-WD change that I did and regretted, confirmed with subsequent emails on www-rdf-comments. > Solution 1 (my preference) > ========================== > Drop parseTypeOther altogether. > It won't make any difference in practice to what implementations do. > It is not the job of a spec to specify how implementations should > handle bad input unless it specifically gives future compatibility. I do > not believe that specifying rdf:parseType="foo bar" gives that. Yeah; the words here should be more of a hint - qnames thing that came up recently, might appear. > > > Solution 2 (probably also helpful anyway) > ========================================= > > Text like: > > "The productions propertyAttr and parseOther which match attributes > with arbitrary values (CDATA) do not match any attribute which is more > specifically matched by any other production in the grammar." Yeah, maybe I'll merge that in. > I note that without this text the perverted could have a reading of > emptyNode matching > > <rdf:Description rdf:ID="foo" rdf:about="#bar" rdf:aboutEach="#fooBar" > /> > > where we have one specific attribute (I don't know which one) and two > propertyAttr's. > That is deliberately misreading the spec. and I don't think it's > important. There are plenty of silly things that could be done, I'm not sure whether to ban rdf:Description as a property etc. or just not provide a meaning for them. Going for latter at present. > Merging of empty property elt productions > ========================================= > > It is unclear which way we're going with triple production. > If we leave it completely out of a schema which specifies legal RDF/XML > then the three productions emptyPropertyElt, > emptyParseTypeLiteralPropertyElt and emptyParseTypeResourcePropertyElt > can be merged into: > > start_element([namespace_name]=any, > [local_name]=any, > [attribtues]=set(idAttr?,parseLiteral?,parseResource?) > end_element() I was going to remove the empty* terms into the, for example, parseTypeLiteralPropertyElt and then have words saying if [children] is empty then A else B. > parseType=Resource of course does produce rather different triples ... Yeah, really a very different thing Thanks Dave
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 06:40:15 UTC