- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:02:05 +0300
- To: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
If push comes to shove, I think we can remove the MAY and require all RDF processors to deal only with well-formed lexical forms, rejecting all others -- and XML users will simply have to be aware of this issue and not rely on any whitespace processing when creating RDF/XML. Patrick > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com] > Sent: 19 August, 2003 19:01 > To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Cc: Peter F. Patel-Schneider > Subject: xmlsch-02 whitespace > > > > Peter is unhappy with the lack of decisiveness in the > whitespace processing. > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSe > p/0269.html > > > I note that WebOnt backed a similar comment, saying: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMa > r/0335.html > > "OWL necessitates that the > denotation in the domain of discourse be fully defined by the source > RDF/XML file. " > > This might suggest that Peter could, if he chose, get WebOnt > support for > his comments above. > > A different way of coping with the implementors' feedback > would have been > to have added the whiteSpace normalization to the l2v mapping > within RDF > datatyping. This would have avoided the MAYs and SHOULDs that > cause the > implementation variability. > > I confess to being worn out with this - but if anyone could > suggests words > I guess I would support them. > > (Dave made a valiant attempt to head this criticism off - but > I think Peter > concern follows from almost any MAY in our spec) > > Jeremy > > > > >
Received on Monday, 25 August 2003 04:12:16 UTC