- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:57:32 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Dan, I have noted your implementation feedback, along with other similar comments in: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#attention-developers Decisions will be reviewed in the light of implementor feedback received. Brian Dan Connolly wrote: > > Brian McBride wrote: > > If you have any comments on this resolution, please send them > > www-rdf-comments@w3.org. > > I'm sorry to say I'm not satisfied; I tried to implement > this solution and found that the idea of <li> matching > typednode is a significant implementation burden without > satisfactory justification. > > For details, see > > containers test0004 baffles me Dan Connolly (Tue, Aug 21 2001) > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Aug/0116.html > > et. seq. > > > In > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000JulSep/0018.html > > > > you raised an issue concerning an ambiguity in the RDF grammar which was > > recorded in the RDF issues list. > > > > The RDFCore WG has resolved and closed this issue: > > > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity > > > > Resolution: > > > > On 29th June 2001, the WG decided that containers will match the typed node > > production > > in the grammar (M&S Section 6, production 6.13) and that the container specific > > productions (productions 6.25 to 6.31) and any references to them be removed > > from the > > grammar. rdf:li elements will be translated to rdf:_nnn elements when they are > > found > > matching either a propertyElt (production 6.12) or a a typedNode (production > > 6.13). The > > decision includes a set of test cases. > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2001 14:01:02 UTC