- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:34:26 +0000
- To: "Karsten-A. Otto" <ottoka@cs.tu-berlin.de>
- cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
>>>"Karsten-A. Otto" said: > Hello, > > while reading the updated grammar for RDF, I noticed that production > 6.1 (RDF) does not allow the abbreviated form <rdf:RDF/>. I think this > should be added as an alternative for the case when no descriptions > are present, resulting in <rdf:RDF></rdf:RDF>. XML treats these two > forms as equivalent, so it should be allowed for compatibility, and > for completeness as all other productions explicitly include the > abbreviated form. The new grammar is in terms of the Infoset so cannot even distinguish the above form; so both alternatives are allowed. In the editors draft of the next working draft, the <rdf:RDF/> element is: http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#RDF and has a possibly-empty list of content. Although, I can't see what use an empty <rdf:RDF/> would be, it is still OK. I hope this answers your questions Dave
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 06:34:29 UTC