- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:59:16 +0000
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 15:05 04/12/2002 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote: >This is my list of things I'm proposing to do for the last call draft >updating http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20021108 >for a new version for this Friday 6th according to our schedule. [...] >Issues: > >* Add some form of canonicalisation words? > > I prefer something lightweight like Brian suggested: > > [[This specification allows an implementation some freedom to > choose exactly what string it will use as the lexical form of an > XML Literal. Whatever string an implementation uses , its > canonicalization (without comments, as defined in ...) must be the > same as the same canonicalization of the literal text l. A minimal > implementation is to use l without change. > ]] > > This has been suggested to go in > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#parseTypeLiteralPropertyElt > to replace the last sentence. Fine by me. Did Jeremy suggest a variation on this wording? >* change the title? > > This was partially from the forms suggested in W3C manual of style > which is optional anyway http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/ and the > proposed change was to call it "Resource Description Framework > (RDF): XML Syntax" I think. I'm neutral-to-slightly against, but > I'm happy to leave the last word on this to Brian. I'd support your slightly against. I think we are in a phase where we only make changes when we have good reason to. > >* Appendix C changes - delete? > > I think this is useful to keep; or at least keep the changes from > between WDs here, linking to previous changes sections. It is > going to stay at the moment. I support having a changes section. I think its a mandatory courtesy to help those who have reviewed an earlier draft in detail, unless the changes are such that a complete re-read is necessary. I might suggest just documenting the changes between this WD and the last, but its not a big deal. Brian
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 04:57:51 UTC