Re: followup from telecon (integration of XML and RDF)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider ([email protected])
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.


From: Dan Connolly <[email protected]>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST