W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2003

RE: Internal DTD Examples Invalidate the RDF/XML Documents

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>
Message-ID: <FFEPLLNFAHGBKNENFGPAMEMIDCAA.dennis.hamilton@acm.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.


-- 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?


> 	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:04 UTC