- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 04 Jun 2003 10:36:37 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 10:14, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > Dave Beckett wrote: > > > > I don't recall seeing another XML specification that says much, if > > anything, about XML names starting with 'xml' either, they assume you > > can read the XML specifications and take it's description that these > > as reserved and use that. > > > > > > So I guess, in terms of proposals. We can either: > > > > 1) continue to say nothing, the XML specification is sufficient. Er... we don't currently say nothing; we currently have wording from 6.1.2 in RDF/XML Syntax and rdf-tests/rdfcore/unrecognised-xml-attributes/test002.rdf > > My preference. > > > > 3) Explicitly allow them. Maybe people do want to do: > > <xml:lang>en</xml:lang> > > or things like that? > > > > with the same test above but with 2 triples, the second: > > <http://example.org/thing> <http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespacefoo> "xyzzy". > > > > FYI, I see the W3C RDF Validator/ARP2 does #3. > > > > Dave > > > > > > That's a bug. If it's a bug, it's evidence that the XML spec is *not* sufficient to make it clear to implementors how this works. Let's please add the this <xml:lang>en</xml:lang> example to the test suite, regardless of what the disposition is. How do you come to conlude that it's a bug, Jeremy? The text in 6.1.2 http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Nodes is about attributes, not element names. > Jeremy > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2003 11:49:22 UTC