RE: xmlsch-02 whitespace


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