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

Re: ISSUE-13: History of rdf:XMLLiteral

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:44:33 +0000
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6BB645D7-1D6A-425E-9F5D-3B9D7986637D@cyganiak.de>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Hi Jeremy,

On 10 Nov 2011, at 22:26, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> An RDF/XML parser should do the C14N step, it is not that hard, and so many do. And for a lot of purposes, even if you mess up on the C14N step it does not matter so much, because the sort of app that does a lot of comparisons is typically logic heavy, and does not use XML Literals, whereas the sort of app that uses XML Literals is web processing heavy, and isn't very logical, and often doesn't do much comparison

Well then let's make that explicit.

Require C14N only as part of the L2V mapping and not in the lexical form, so that the parsers who mess up are actually conforming. This way we might even get a chance to use rdf:XMLLiteral in Turtle, where we currently need to canonicalize *by hand*.

And make rdf:XMLLiteral an optional part of the datatype map (like the XSD types) so that apps who don't need to compare XML values can just treat it as opaque blobs.

As far as I can see, everybody wins.

Best,
Richard
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 22:45:03 GMT

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