W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: draft XML query results format spec

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:25:29 +0100
To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20040929142529.21c7ab1c@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:48:42 -0400, Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 06:06:35PM +0100, Dave Beckett wrote:
> 
> >   <result>
> >     <hpage href="http://work.example.org/alice/"/>
> 
> I think the attribute here should be "uri" instead of "href"; in this
> case it's probably the case that Alice's hpage could be derefenced,
> but in many cases the URI in subject position isn't meant to
> be. "href", while well known from HTML, doesn't match the case where
> URIs are used as names or logical constants or just unique identifiers
> that aren't supposed to be deref'd.
> 
> I'd prefer, then,  that this example look, in pertinent part, like
> this:
> 
> <result>
>   <hpage uri="http://work.example.org/alice"/>
>   ...

I can live with that change.  No need to imply retrieval or html-like semantics.
And 1 char shorter :)


> >     <blurb><p xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">My name is <b>alice</b></p></blurb>
> 
> I prefer the escaped version, though I'm not sure why. Initially I
> thought it was because I suspect some triple stores don't *really*
> support XML literals per the specification (which requires Canonical
> XML, iirc), but now I guess I'm just vaguely unease about the whole
> thing.

I think still prefering the unescaped since that reads more naturally.
If the triple stores do XML bad, that's their problem.  Switch to the competition
or fix it :)   Generally I think &-escaping gets a -1 from XML, or -lots from
some.

Dave
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2004 13:27:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:20 GMT