From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 11/21/01
I maintain that parsetype is not good XML. Not illegal, not non-well-formed, not invalid, not not-any-other-formal relationship-with-XML-1.0, just not good, as in bad, ugly, not useful, counter to intuition, etc. I don't know a better, concise way of stating this. Hopefully XML 1.0 has not coopted good and bad. :-) Why do I say that parsetype is bad? That is a long story, having to do with parsetype changing the intended interpretation of XML. peter From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Subject: Re: followup from telecon (integration of XML and RDF) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 20:45:19 -0600 > "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: > [...] > > 2/ parsetype, as this is not good XML. (parsetype=literal is not needed, > > in any case, here.) > > What's wrong with rdf:parseYype="Literal"? > > It's perfectly good XML. Please don't spread misinformation. > > If you mean that you don't like it, please say so more plainly. > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST