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

Re: Comment/testcase I18N-01?

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 09:56:41 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Cc: i18n <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>

Hello Brian,

I agree with your comment below, as amended by Dave Beckett.
The current version of the test case is definitely wrong.

It may be a good idea to make sure that the primer clearly
explains the difference between text with markup and text
that may look like markup. Given the mess that some of the
usage communities have made out of this (e.g. RSS), I think
this is extremely important.

Regards,    Martin.

At 13:11 03/07/18 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:

>One of the things that has come out of our discussions with I18N has, I
>think, been that we better understand the relationship between sequences
>of characters and markup.  Whilst I18N did not specifically point out
>this flaw in the current syntax spec, I think it should be attributed to
>their input.
>Consider the test case:
>   <eg:prop rdf:parseType="Literal"><em>&lt;br /></em></eg:prop>
>If my reading of the syntax document [1] is correct, it states that this
>is equivalent to (with a little license in the syntax):
>_:a <eg:prop> "<em><br /></em>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral .
>I believe that should read
>_:a <eg:prop> "<em>&lt;br /></em>^^ rdf:XMLLiteral .
>or some variation on that theme, to preserve the distinction between
>markup and content.  We need to decide exactly what characters get
>DaveB: is my reading of syntax correct?
>Martin/I18N - would you endorse this comment?
Received on Sunday, 20 July 2003 16:03:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:06 UTC