Proposed reply to Dave Reynolds

Housekeeping before LC2.

Should we not send something like this ...
(I note that there is no formal WG decision on this as yet - the last I could 
find was the fudge in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0215
)

Maybe we should formally approve a motion like:

PROPOSE rescind decision of 15th August on fudging xmlsch whitespace 
processing.




[[
Dear Dave

as you know your comment concerning whitespace processing of XML Schema 
datatypes in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0076
has given rise to lengthy discussion in the RDF Core WG.

<<<
NegativeEntailmentTest xmlsch-02/Manifest.rdf#whitespace-facet-2 - FAIL
NegativeEntailmentTest xmlsch-02/Manifest.rdf#whitespace-facet-1 - FAIL
  These test non-mutual entailment of a valid literal with an invalid 
  literal that differs only by whitespace. Unfortunately our XSD 
  handling library is happy with the whitespace and doesn't 
  treat " 3 " as an invalid int. 
  This could be fixed if that is indeed how XSD is supposed to work,
  though the current behaviour seems more useful in practice.
>>>

However, we are not planning to make any changes in response to this comment.; 
although we are seeking further feedback from the XML Schema WG.

Please reply, cc-ing www-rdf-comments@w3.org, indicating whether you accept 
this.

]]

Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2003 07:39:03 UTC