- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:28:17 +0300
- To: <phayes@ihmc.us>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext pat hayes [mailto:phayes@ihmc.us] > Sent: 27 August, 2003 04:16 > To: Brian McBride > Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: pfps-06 hold off? > > > > >Pat, > > > >I'm wondering whether we should hold off your following up > pfps on pfps-06 as: > > > > 1) the xml schema lex 2 val mapping may be about to change Honestly, Brian, I'm wondering how this could happen. We do not define the XML Schema L2V mapping, and the XML Schema specs are quite clear that the L2V mapping does *not* include whitespace processing, so I remain very puzzled at your suggestion that this could change. All that we could do ourselves would be to say that the RDF L2V mapping, for XML Schema datatypes, includes the whitespace processing, but such a position creates such blatant dependencies and other nastiness in our design that simply thinking about such a thing happening makes my ass start to twitch. Can you please, if possible, clarify what basis you have for suggesting that the XML Schema L2V mapping might change, or that the RDF L2V mapping would not be the same for XML Schema datatypes as defined by XML Schema? The few comments that we have recieved from implementors regarding the looseness of the Xerces implementation does not IMO even begin to justify any such changes. Thanks, Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2003 05:28:24 UTC