W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > January to March 2002

RDF C14N Max or Min

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:53:05 -0000
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDKECPCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> RDF C14N Max or Min
> ===================
> Should the new RDF specs try to maximally or minimally specify
> the behaviour
> of RDF processors w.r.t. rdf:parseType="Literal"
>
>

An issue that I began to bring up in the message on equality was are we
trying to bless as much as possible the current behaviour of RDF
implementations, or are we trying to specify as tightly as possible
'correct' behaviour (hence breaking all current implementations).

The trade off is that a maximal specification will:
- break all existing systems
- be harder to implement
- provide a better foundation for interoperability

A minimal specification will
- almost bless some existing implementations
- not commit to decisions that we are not yet in a position to know the
answer to.
- provide sufficient interoperability for some test cases and perhaps for
the model theory

I think both cases are fairly difficult to understand, because C14N provides
a barrier.
Whether it is easier or more obscure to push that difficulty into the
equality algorithm I don't think I can judge.

My take on what is a maximal and minimal solution is as follows:

                             Min        Max
Comments                     No         Yes
Excl/Incl                    Excl       either
NamespacePrefixList          No         Yes
SyntaxOrEquality             Equality   Syntax

Although almost any combination of features is plausible.
Received on Monday, 4 March 2002 10:53:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:14 GMT