W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: Unescaped XML in the SPARQL XML Result Format and Tuesday's agenda

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:22:39 +0100
Message-ID: <46F6689F.3080300@hp.com>
To: Ivan Mikhailov <imikhailov@openlinksw.com>
Cc: 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


Ivan Mikhailov wrote:
> Andy,
> 
>> The <a> is in the default namespace of 
>> "http://www.w3.org/2005/sparql-results#" so it's
>>    {http://www.w3.org/2005/sparql-results#}a
>> which is not HTML nor XHTML.
> 
> You're right. But this does not mean that the idea is bad, it means that
> you've reported a bug in Virtuoso and now I've committed a fix. No
> default namespace at top levels of the result document -- no problem.


Great - I pointed this out in the SOAP message - I also got an undeclared 
entities (&THIS;).  I'll retest the SOAP protocol when this is deployed.

My result format parser is namespace aware so as long as the <literal> is 
<x:literal> for x as http://www.w3.org/2005/sparql-results# it will all just 
work.  It is not validating.  It uses StAX and is streaming.

>> 3: It can't be validated any more.
> 
> I agree. OTOH lack of validation did not stop RDF/XML developers.
> 
>> 4: Escaping in lexical forms is still needed
> 
> Of course any XML output will require escaping of weird strings. But if
> we require escaping of whole XML trees then double escaping of same
> literal forms will be even more weird.

Do you have a concrete example we can work though?  My intent of using the 
Virtuoso example was to move the discussion from the abstract to the concrete. 
  I thought that after escaping the XML chars < and & then that was then safe.

> Now we have some about 10 implementations of SPARQL processors. We
> intend to create a format that will be used worldwide by thousands of
> developers. The difference in orders of magnitude means that our
> personal inconveniences with adjusting implementations simply do not
> matter. 

The maintaining the installed base is not a blocking issue for me and it's not 
something I mentioned in my previous message.  The experience from those 
systems is good input into our decision though.

	Andy

> Moreover, if an implementation writes escaped XML text it is
> still OK, it's enough to be able to read unescaped XML made by others.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Ivan Mikhailov.

-- 
  Hewlett-Packard Limited
  Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
  Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Sunday, 23 September 2007 13:23:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:37 GMT