W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2003

RE: XML literals

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:49:30 +0200
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDIEOHCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>



> But could we not still state that the value space consists of
> Infosets, and the L2V mapping is from canonical octet sequence
> to nodeset to infoset, and visa versa?
>
> If it can be finessed, I think we are in a better position
> having a value space of infosets.
>
> Patrick
>

Using the infoset you are supposed to say which bits of it are relevant:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#conformance

since rdf:XMLLiteral depends on exc-c14n which depends on xpath, we depend
on  the same information items (not the document). I suggest it is not our
place to articulate those.

In --
2.2 Element Information Items
2.3 Attribute Information Items
2.4 Processing Instruction Information Items
2.6 Character Information Items
2.7 Comment Information Items
2.11 Namespace Information Items

Out --
2.1 The Document Information Item
2.5 Unexpanded Entity Reference Information Items
2.8 The Document Type Declaration Information Item
2.9 Unparsed Entity Information Items
2.10 Notation Information Items

????

i.e. we can follow the specs from our current design thru to Xpath. While
there is presumably a link between xpath and infoset, that looks more
difficult. So I cautiously favour remaining silent, and leaving XMLers to
fill in the gaps if any.

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 8 August 2003 09:50:18 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:59:36 EDT