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

RE: xml literal and xslt (resend)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:28:28 -0000
To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDIEEMCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

The other extreme that I see in the possibility space is a proposal like:


Propose that:
- the exact form of the string value corresponding to any given XML Literal
within RDF/XML is implementation dependent.
- the string value is well-balanced XML that can be inserted as the elment
content between two tags:


to form an XML document, satisfying both XML and XML Namespaces.

- taking the exclusive canonicalization of both the original XML Literal in
its containing document, and the string value within the dummy "<foo></foo>"
document produce the same character string. Equality between xml literals is
defined on this basis, but only for the purpose of exercising the test
- that the canonicalization above is without comments

- we create some test cases (e.g. with qnames in attribute values) for which
interoperability difficulties may be observed


What this means is that implementations
- preserve all visibly used namespaces
- not leave dangling qnames in element tags or attribute names
- not leave dangling entity references
- preserve whitespace (except in tags)
- preserve processing instructions

are free to:
- ignore or keep comments
- use any form of the XML that is Infoset equivalent
- include any namespaces (whatsoever) that are not visibly used, e.g. to
treat a declaration as a visible use.
- be written in XSLT, and/or have XSLT preprocessors (not compatible with
treating declarations as visible use)
- not implement C14N

This does not suffer from namespace pollution.

Received on Monday, 11 March 2002 11:28:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:56 UTC