- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:38:25 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Jeremy quoted 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. ]]] Graham said: > I also think that well-chosen entity definitions make the document _way_ > more readable. I'd note that there is no equivalent paragraph in the syntax working draft and I've seen RDF/XML used in this way by several people for abbreviations. Do we really think this is going to clash with XML? (Aside: not that I like XML entities much anyway; we don't have to care about them since the Infoset mapping we use removes them.) Dave
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 12:41:38 UTC