RE: xmlsch-02

+1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Graham Klyne [mailto:gk@ninebynine.org]
> Sent: 27 August, 2003 13:27
> To: Brian McBride; Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: xmlsch-02
> 
> 
> 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 Friday, 29 August 2003 02:03:52 UTC