- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:26:42 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 09:56 26/08/03 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
>Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
>
>
>[...]
>
>>UGH! Please, no.
>>If Peter or others are unhappy about our fudging, then we shouldn't
>>fudge, and we should take the stricter position that lexical forms
>>are lexical forms are lexical forms and no whitespace processing
>>is ever to be applied to any lexical form.
>
>Why is that preferrable? This has come up at all because the most
>commonly used library Xerces, implements the more forgiving function. It
>has been suggested we should not specify something that most
>implementations wont implement? In effect this suggestion arises from
>implementation feedback.
I'm insufficiently close to this issue to comment in detail, but it seems
to me that the appropriate approach is for RDF to define the meaning of
well-formed RDF. If certain parsers also accept some RDF-like language and
give it a reasonable RDF-like interpretation, it's not for us to say that
the applications are wrong, they're just operating outside the scope of the
RDF specification.
So the important things are:
(a) define what constitutes well-formed RDF/XML, and
(b) define how such well-formed RDF is interpreted.
While (reasonably, IMO) staying silent about what applications should do if
faced with text that is not well-formed RDF.
#g
------------
Graham Klyne _________
GK@ninebynine.org ___|_o_o_o_|_¬
\____________/
(nb Helva) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ @Reading, River Thames
http://www.ninebynine.org/Travels/2003Aug-Thames/Intro.html
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2003 13:48:44 UTC