W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Closing ISSUE-13

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 20:25:58 +0200
Message-Id: <AC20E2A1-F1EB-4043-A61A-4E0AC626ECCE@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-wg Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Arnaud,

Thanks,

The question on the simplified version is whether the specification

[[[
>   • Let domfrag be a DOM DocumentFragment node [DOM-LEVEL-3-CORE]
> >    corresponding to the literal's lexical form
]]]

is indeed a clear definition, ie, whether there is only one way to do that. My instinct of course says yes, but, as Richard says, it is a bit of handwaving. If you are confident that this is, from an XML point view, absolutely clear, then of course this is much simpler and is a better alternative.

Thanks

Ivan

P.S. I guess the detailed approach is to take all the top level nodes of the lexical form, create DOM nodes for each of them in document order, and then create a fresh DocumentFragment and adding those DOM nodes as children...


---
Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153
http://www.ivan-herman.net

(Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)



On 10 May 2012, at 18:51, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> It should be clear to anyone who's read the whole thread that you've cleared out the issue already as far as the interpretation of the DOM spec goes but since I was specifically prompted I'll confirm that your interpretation of the DOM spec is correct. 
> 
> I do favor Richard's simplified mapping though. The notion of using an arbitrary set of XML tags to then ignore it does nothing but confuse things in my opinion.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:        Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> 
> To:        Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, 
> Cc:        Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, public-rdf-wg Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org> 
> Date:        05/10/2012 07:10 AM 
> Subject:        Re: Closing ISSUE-13 
> 
> 
> 
> As they say "ain't broken, don't fix it"... Leave it as is. It works.
> 
> Ivan
> 
> On May 10, 2012, at 15:53 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 
> > Ivan,
> > 
> > On 10 May 2012, at 14:20, Ivan Herman wrote:
> >> So you are right, it works, thanks to those clever DOM3 editors:-). Is it worth putting a note into the document to make this clear?
> > 
> > I don't know. Having worked with DOM DocumentFragments before, I had assumed intuitively that two DocumentFragments would be equal iff their childNodes are equal. And that is indeed the case with isEqualNode. So, for me, the text as is works fine.
> > 
> > Yet another option might be to simplify the L2V mapping, leaving some steps as an exercise to the reader. For example:
> > 
> > [[
> > The lexical-to-value mapping is defined as follows:
> > 
> >  • Let domfrag be a DOM DocumentFragment node [DOM-LEVEL-3-CORE]
> >    corresponding to the literal's lexical form
> >  • Return domfrag.normalize()
> > ]]
> > 
> > This does a bit of handwaving by assuming that there is an obvious and well-defined correspondence between members of the lexical space and DOM DocumentFragments. I think this simpler wording would avoid some confusion, but implementers might have to think a bit harder about how to implement this given the tools they have. I prefer this simplified wording.
> > 
> > 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 May 2012 18:26:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:48 GMT