Re: Updated RDF Grammar

>>>"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:
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


Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 06:34:29 UTC