ISSUE-55: Should the XML syntax be fully striped [CP]
STRIPING
Should the XML syntax be fully striped [CP]
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Technical Design (multiple dialects/documents)
- Raised by:
- Christopher Welty
- Opened on:
- 2008-04-20
- Description:
- The issues of whether the XML syntax is fully striped has been discussed repeatedly.
If fully striped, it is a short step to make the BLD syntax valid RDF. Is that desireable? - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- RE: non-RDF-compatible type-tagged XML (from alex.kozlenkov@betfair.com on 2008-05-27)
- non-RDF-compatible type-tagged XML (from sandro@w3.org on 2008-05-26)
- ISSUE-55 (STRIPING): Should the XML syntax be fully striped [CP] [Technical Design (multiple dialects/documents)] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2008-04-20)
Related notes:
At the Galway F2F10, the WG decided on the XML syntax for BLD LC, including the striping style, and resolved to close this issue.
In addition to deciding the XML syntax, to close this issue the WG:
<li>resolved not to have an RDF-compatible XML syntax. Harold Boley (NRC), Michael Kifer (Invited Expert), and Adrian Giurca (REWERSE) objected to an RDF-compatible syntax on the grounds that: too strong an association with RDF would be a deterrent to certain communities adopting RIF; it made the XML syntax too verbose; it introduced undesirable striping style to the XML syntax. No one in the WG objected to *not having* an RDF-compatible XML syntax syntax, though a majority of present WG members did prefer it.
<li>resolved to have a "self describing" or "object-oriented" XML syntax style such that e.g. RIF/XML could be parsed into objects and properties, and thus to specifically identify the syntactic elements where order matters in the RIF semantics by using something like an "ordered=yes" attribute on such elements.
Display change log
