- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 11 Apr 2002 12:33:51 -0500
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 11:38, Dave Beckett wrote: [...] > 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? Not in the timeframe we're working on. Leave the syntax WD as is. The primer might make a note of the technique (since folks, e.g. Graham, find it useful) and point to the postponed issue about qnames in attribute values. > (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.) Indeed... the less our specs say about entities, the better, for my purposes. I consider the use of &rdfs; entity references in the datatypes spec an editorial matter, for The Editor to choose, after considering whatever advice from the WG he chooses to consider. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 13:34:31 UTC