- From: Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 22:32:55 -0700
- To: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
I think we are talking past each other around the DTD principle and what constitutes an out-of-band agreement. It doesn't matter. I am completely aligned with your proposed action. Thanks, -- Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Frank Manola [mailto:fmanola@acm.org] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 11:11 To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org Subject: Re: Internal DTD Examples Invalidate the RDF/XML Documents [ ... ] However, all that notwithstanding, I've taken an editorial action to try to make this more explicit in the Primer. What I propose to do is: a. In the example in section 3 where entities are first introduced, briefly note that the use of a document type declaration here is just to declare entities (and not to provide a complete syntactic specification for RDF/XML), that the use of entities (and document type declarations) is optional, and that this does *not* mean that RDF/XML can be validated by a validating XML processor. And then point the reader to Appendix B. b. In Appendix B, get into somewhat more detail (but not much); in particular, briefly mention the difference between well-formed and valid XML, note that RDF/XML only has to be well-formed, that for various reasons (not just the QName point you mentioned) it's hard to write a DTD for full RDF/XML, and hence XML validation is generally not expected. Does that make sense? --Frank > - - - - - - - - - - - - > > Meanwhile, I think I need to look at XML 1.0 and 1.1 more carefully and see whether this is a conversation that I should take up on an XML list. I will also look at the WS-I work to see if this kind of disconnect is a concern or not in the profiles for interoperability. > [ ... ] > -- Dennis. [ ... ]
Received on Saturday, 4 October 2003 01:33:17 UTC