Re: RDF XML Syntax doc proposed changes / issues

At 13:54 05/12/2002 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote:
> >>>Brian McBride said:
> > At 15:05 04/12/2002 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote:
> > >* Add some form of canonicalisation words?
> > >
> > >   I prefer something lightweight like Brian suggested:
> > >
> > >   [[This specification allows an implementation some freedom to
> > >   choose exactly what string it will use as the lexical form of an
> > >   XML Literal.  Whatever string an implementation uses , its
> > >   canonicalization (without comments, as defined in ...) must be the
> > >   same as the same canonicalization of the literal text l.  A minimal
> > >   implementation is to use l without change.
> > >   ]]
> > >
> > >   This has been suggested to go in
> > >     http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#parseTypeLiteralPropertyElt
> > >   to replace the last sentence.
> >
> > Fine by me.  Did Jeremy suggest a variation on this wording?
>
>Not that I've seen; your suggestion above was the last thing in the
>thread of comments.

Did you look at

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0649.html

Brian