W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: ISSUE-13: History of rdf:XMLLiteral

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:44:48 +0100
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D16D8124-7F4C-4B1A-9ADE-5F6CF9E6764C@w3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>

On Nov 10, 2011, at 15:59 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:
[snip]

(Thanks for the history, Richard!)

> 
> Now the question is: If we want to change anything about XML literals, then what problem exactly are we trying to solve?
> 

I think we need clarification. I remember a long discussion in the RDFa WG a few years ago. The question arising was: what is exactly the XML Literal an RDFa processor should produce on its output. And it was not clear from the document.

*My* interpretation was that if a processor outputs an RDF graph in a serialized format, then it can be any valid XML, not necessarily in canonical form (ie, the attributes can be in any order), because canonicalization comes into the picture only when the datatype values are compared, ie, when graphs are compared. Others had a different reading of the document.

I do not think we should go into the mess of changing the XML Literals. Clearly they are not widely used, although there are cases when they are (typical case is the content in an RSS 1.0 feed). But we need a clearer description on when, under what circumstances canonicalization is necessary.

Ivan


> Best,
> Richard


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 16:42:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:46 GMT