Suggestions from January review on §3.4

[pchampin]

---

Preview | Diff

[hartig]

Just a suggestion ("component elements" sounds a bit weird to me):

Suggested change

	two, three, or four component elements, as follows:</p>
	two, three, or four components, as follows:</p>

[pchampin]

@afs suggested "component elements", so that's what I wrote.
"component" works for me. @afs? @gkellogg?

[TallTed]

Small tweak.

      two, three, or four components, as follow:</p>

[pchampin]

@TallTed the change from "as follow" to "as follows" was suggested by @bobdc, and makes sense to me because

• everywhere else, we use "as follows"
• my understanding, confirmed by a quick web search, is that "as follows" is grammatically correct, while "as follow" is not

Any argument in the defense of "as follow"?

[TallTed]

There are differing opinions on this bit of grammar. To my ear, follow sounds better after a plural antecedent. I think the best solution would be to change follow(s) to below, for which there is no belows.

[afs]

"components" is also used as "The three components (s, p, o) of an RDF triple. "component element" is an attempt to distinguish the usage at this point then continue using "element" in the rest of the next. It leaves "element" in the rest of the section alone.

If its one word "component" here the rest of the section needs updating as well. "if the third element is present" etc.

[hartig]

Thanks for mentioning the rationale for this change @afs ! Yet, I would still prefer to use "components". "component element" sounds repetitive and clunky.

If its one word "component" here the rest of the section needs updating as well. "if the third element is present" etc.

There are three places in the whole document where the word "element" is used in the given context:

1. Right after the four bullet points of the definition of "literal". Here it says: "[..] if the third element is present and the fourth element is not present. [..] if both the third element and fourth elements are present."
   --> I propose to replace these mentions of "element" by the actual names of the elements: "[..] if the language tag is present and the base direction is not present. [..] if both the language tag and the base direction are present."
2. In the abstract, where it says: "RDF 1.2 also introduces directional language-tagged strings, which contain a base direction element that [..]"
   --> I propose to replace this by: ".. contain a base direction component .."
3. In the change log (4-th bullet point), where it says: "Added the base direction element as part of [..]"
   --> Also for this one, I propose to replace it by: ".. the base direction component .."

[afs]

"component" is OK with those changes.

[TallTed]

Approved with my additional suggested change.

[afs]

Requested changes for the component/element discussion.