- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:10:00 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 03:49 PM 4/11/02 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >Patrick is "fully versed in XML 1.0". > > >One minor point, you use local entity defs to simulate qnames in attr >values. > >This is quite cute, but does go against this para in M&S: > >[[[ >Note: Schema developers may be tempted to declare the values of certain >properties to use a syntax corresponding to the XML Namespace qualified name >abbreviation. We advise against using these qualified names inside property >values as this may cause incompatibilities with future XML datatyping >mechanisms. Furthermore, those fully versed in XML 1.0 features may >recognize that a similar abbreviation mechanism exists in user-defined >entities. We also advise against relying on the use of entities as there is >a proposal to define a future subset of XML that does not include >user-defined entities. >]]] > > >I am happy to drop the intent of this paragraph - that seems to be a >corollary of Patrick being "fully versed in XML 1.0" :). But from your description, what Patrick is doing doesn't correspond to that part of the M&S recommendation cited. I certainly found that, when doing CC/PP, using local entity defs was very useful if not particularly elegant. I also think that well-chosen entity definitions make the document _way_ more readable. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 12:12:43 UTC