- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:25:22 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- cc: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>>>Dan Connolly said: > Art Barstow wrote: > > ... Also, do we really need to provide more > > than one schema; what about just pointing to the work of James and > > Rick instead of including their work in the document? > > I prefer a pointer. Two votes for a pointer - I'm changing it and adding links to the schematron one too, adding non normative words. > I think it's great work, but when I looked at it, I found > at least one bug in the relax-ng thingy; I haven't even > found time to report it. > > I'm happy to have it copied into our WD only if, say, > three members of this WG are willing to vouch for it; > i.e. to say "yes, I've looked at it and it agrees > with the rest of the spec". I can't vouch for it at this time. > I could live with copying it into the WD only with > a strong disclaimer ala "this may have bugs. We're > pretty sure it does have bugs. But it's nifty, so > we're including it here so folks can help us work > out the bugs." Of course, that's pretty close > to a commitment to address any comments made > on this relax-NG schema. Dave, are you prepared > to address such comments? No. I also have to ask James' permission to include it. Change made to http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Schemas as of CVS version 1.72 or later Dave
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 12:25:23 UTC