Re: first pass parseType="Literal" text for primer

On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 15:26, Frank Manola wrote:
> Brian--
> 
> I have both some editorial comments and some technical comments about this.
> 
> Editorial comments:
> 
> Putting this as a section 4.5 seems OK.

I'm happy for you to suggest somewhere better, but this looked ok to me.

>   This will have us covering 
> parseType="Literal" in 4.5, and we already cover parsetype="Collection" 
> in 4.2.  As I've already mentioned, we probably in that case should 
> cover parseType="Resource" too, but this can easily be added to 4.4 (and 
> there's already an example there that uses it, so all I have to do is 
> point out what it does).  All I need to do then is add a forward 
> reference from the typed literal section (2.4) and a brief mention to 
> these types of "other facilities" at the beginning of Section 4.

The primer doesn't have to cover everything.  I think we need stability
more than text on parseType="Resource".

> 
> I think we're going to have to explain a bit further what the "need for 
> care" is at the bottom of the example.  It might not jump out at someone 
> right away.  Also, I wonder about calling this stuff "rich text";  it 
> might remind people of rtf, and that's not what we're talking about.

Ok - dropped rich text.  Added more words about care.

> 
> I also think we need to say something explicitly about xml:lang.  A 
> couple of examples use it already (even before we introduce this new 
> one), but since one of the issues surrounding this material has been 
> xml:lang, we probably should say something about it.

The text does.  Its used in the example and there is specific mention of
not inheritting it from its context.
> 
> Technical comments:
> 
> 1.  Your example uses HTML, but according to the definition of 
> XMLLiteral, the value is supposed to be XML. 

Looks like XML to me.

>  We could say XHTML instead 
> of XML, but I think we also need to say something explicitly about 
> handling HTML (and any other non-XML stuff that looks like markup). 
> People might think they can put any old markup in there, and get a surprise.

I'm inclinded not to make this too complicated.  I suggest it makes the
point we need to make and that is sufficient.

> 
> 2.  What happens if someone, instead of using parsetype="Literal", 
> writes an element with markup content as a regular typed literal with an 
> rdf:datatype attribute value of rdf:XMLLiteral?

That is a corner case I don't expect to cover in the primer.

>   I would assume this is 
> supposed to work the same way as writing parsetype="Literal", and the 
> element content needs to obey the same rules, but we don't explicitly 
> say anything about it (either saying it's allowed, and it works the same 
> way, or explicitly forbidding it).  Syntax doesn't seem to explicitly 
> cover this case either.

New text follows shortly.

Brian

Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 09:33:48 UTC