RE: Proposed NTriples changes for literal notation

(Another resend - I've had some problems)

Dave:
> >   * Provides only one way to encoded the literal-structures
> >     and so in that sense is canonical.
Graham:
> Also good - simple-minded applications may still do string
> comparison, right?


Hmmm, ....

we still have to decide that, ....

Dave:
>   xml("<b>foo</b>")              XML content, no language
what about xml("<b >foo</b>") is this:
a) not legal ntriple
b) legal but different from xml("<b>foo</b>") (and not representable in
RDF/XML?)
c) legal and the same as xml("<b>foo</b>")


Personally I prefer (c), but I think it is better for the group to not make
this decision until after we have completed the xml literal issues.

For our test cases I think we can choose appropriate canonical strings, so
this needn't slow us down at all.

Jeremy