W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2002

RDF C14N Comments

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:46:30 -0000
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDMECMCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> RDF C14N Comments  (A)
> =================
> Discussion of XML comments in C14N, and xml-literals in RDF.


An easy binary choice is whether the C14N for xml-literals should preserve
comments or strip them.

e.g. given the following RDF/XML

<rdf:Description
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core#"
  xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
  rdf:about="http://example.org/papers/paper1">
  <dc:Title rdf:parseType="Literal"><!-- Relevant text start. -->
    Foo<em>bar</em>
  <!-- Relevant text end. --></dc:Title>
</rdf:Description>

Is the generated graph:

<http://example.org/papers/paper1> <dc:title> "<!-- Relevant text
start. -->\n    Foo<em xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">bar</em>\n  <!--
Relevant text end. -->" .

or

<http://example.org/papers/paper1> <dc:title> "\n    Foo<em
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">bar</em>\n  " .

C14N allows both forms, and the RDF Core WG should decide which (or decide
that RDF applications decide which).
(Note I have used exclusive C14N with an empty InclusiveNamespaces Prefix
List).

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 4 March 2002 08:46:47 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:13 EDT