- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:08:25 -0000
- To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Hi,
This is a comment about
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-HTTP-in-RDF-20061220/#body
In 2.4. Body Property, it is said:
The body property represents an HTTP entity body as defined
in [RFC 2616]. It can appear in nodes of both type Request or
Response. HTTP bodies are series of bytes. Thus they MUST be
translated to a string of text using the Base64 encoding
scheme to make it representable in RDF.
This is puzzling.
In 2.7 CDATA Sections, (XML Rec, 4th ed.)
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/#sec-cdata-sect
Definition: CDATA sections may occur anywhere character data
may occur; they are used to escape blocks of text containing
characters which would otherwise be recognized as markup.
CDATA sections begin with the string "<![CDATA[" and end with
the string "]]>":]
An XML parser will ignore the markup inside a CDATA section and just parse a string of text, which is the intended purpose of the definition above. Then why there is a need to encode as base64, which add another layer of shadow.
If it's a problem with RDF, why not just using the datatype "string" on "http:body"" Property:
rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"
Title: "HTTP Vocabulary in RDF"
URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-HTTP-in-RDF-20061220/
Date: 2007-01-17
Status: 1st WD
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2007 03:09:07 UTC