On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > I see the choice space as: > > 1: Leave things as they are > 2: Choose a form X of canonicalization, > require parser to implement X > define lexical to value mapping as X > 3: Choose a form X of canonicalization > define lexical to value mapping as X > leave text in Syntax largely unchanged (except use X in place of current > "exclusive canonicalization without comments"). This allows cheap and > cheerful parsers that do not canonicalize. > > ===== > 3 is now my preference - I realise it needs expansion, but before I do that > I wish to list pros and cons, and get feedback from WG. > ===== As long as canonicalisation is expensive and/or difficult to get right, too large for embedded work (? - really the case these days), and there's a lack of decent libraries to perform this, I think the "cheap and cheerful" approach makes a lot of sense. > Consider three use cases: > C) Embedding XSLT document inside and rdf:XMLLiteral (hence requiring > support for preservation of not visibly used namespaces) Is this a problem with XSLT? That is, does the dropping of unused namespaces in a canonicalisation mean that xslt is lacking a "dummy" construct to utilise otherwise unused namespaces? If so, is there an XSLT feedback avenue? -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/ There's no convincing English-language argument that this sentence is true.Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 10:35:31 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:52 EDT