On Oct 26, 2010, at 23:08 , Toby Inkster wrote: > On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:24:07 +0100 > Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com> wrote: > >> I don't think we should go any further than the canonicalisation >> algorithm. > > FWIW, RDFa 1.0 says to use XML exclusive c14n. However, test case 0101 > in the RDFa 1.0 test suite calls for xml:lang attributes to be copied > into the child elements of literal - that's a feature of xml c14n, but > as I understand it, xml ec14n explicitly says not to do this. > > Personally I'd be happiest to go with using plain old ec14n. It's a > stable specification. XMLLiterals are a rare enough use case that > anyone doing particularly delicate things with them should be expected > to handle making the literal as self-contained as possible themselves > rather than relying on the parser to do so. > +1 Ivan > -- > Toby A Inkster > <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> > <http://tobyinkster.co.uk> > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 07:22:35 UTC