[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: RDF/XML Syntax Working Draft 2002-11-08 Published

• To: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Subject: Re: RDF/XML Syntax Working Draft 2002-11-08 Published
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>
• Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 15:52:26 +0000
• Cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@b...>, xml-dev@l...
• Organization: Propylon
• References: <E18CXnq-0001Hj-00@m...>
• Reply-to: bill.dehora@p...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Uche Ogbuji wrote:

> I'm not sure what's wrong with just saying it's illegal.

I agree, but see below.

>>See notes and recommendations near
>>  http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#eventterm-attribute-URI
> 
> 
> Sorry, but since you cracked the door open, I'll personally be turning a blind 
> eye to that "SHOULD NOT".  I *really* do not like
> 
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="...">...
> 
> And I'll avoid it as long as I am not entirely proscribed from using 
> 
> <rdf:Description about="...">...

[Disclaimer: Uche and I don't agree on this issue of namespaced 
attributes in RDF/XML.] But in any case, a specification level of 
'should not' isn't the way to go here. Otherwise, this becomes a 
"meet you in the marketplace" scenario, where we compete on entirely 
the wrong issue. Unless rules of engagement are specified (which for 
another reason can't be done in RDF), 'should not' is an interop 
rathole - everybody's correct.

I'm not sure, but I suspect that this might be an example of an 
attribute that wants to be an element.

Bill de hÓra

--
Propylon
www.propylon.com

• References:
  • Re: RDF/XML Syntax Working Draft 2002-11-08 Published
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: more QName madness
• Next by Date: Re: RDF was a bully (was Re: RDF and the new releases)
• Previous by thread: Re: RDF/XML Syntax Working Draft 2002-11-08 Published
• Next by thread: FW: Embedding html in XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread