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

RE: first pass parseType="Literal" text for primer

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:36:07 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B026301A3@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <gk@ninebynine.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>


Right. OK. Whew!  ;-)

Patrick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Graham Klyne [mailto:gk@ninebynine.org]
> Sent: 28 July, 2003 16:02
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: first pass parseType="Literal" text for primer
> 
> 
> Sounds about right to me.  Here's another case to consider:
> 
>    <title rdf:parseType='Literal'>Why the &lt;FONT> Tag is Bad</title>
> 
> which I understand to be valid XML, I think also yields:
> 
>    "Why the &lt;FONT&gt; Tag is Bad"^^rdf:XMLLiteral
> 
> (underscoring that the &-stuff in the XML lexical form is put 
> there by the 
> RDF parser handling the C14N stuff.)
> 
> #g
> --
> 
> At 15:52 28/07/03 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> >OK.
> >
> >If I'm understanding this correctly, the &lt; and &gt;
> >are getting resolved to '<' and '>' by the RDF/XML
> >parser, insofar as the XML processing of the RDF/XML
> >instance is concerned, but the canonicalization is
> >re-escaping them back to &lt; and &gt;?
> >
> >If the entities are not ever being resolved at any
> >stage of the parsing process, then that worries me
> >alot. It suggests that an RDF/XML parser is not
> >playing by the rules of XML fully.
> >
> >Patrick
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ext Graham Klyne [mailto:gk@ninebynine.org]
> > > Sent: 28 July, 2003 15:13
> > > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > > Cc: Dave Beckett
> > > Subject: RE: first pass parseType="Literal" text for primer
> > >
> > >
> > > At 14:31 28/07/03 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > 2. <title rdf:parseType='Literal'>Why the &lt;FONT&gt; Tag is
> > > > > Bad</title>
> > > > >
> > > > > I take the value of this 'title' property to be:
> > > > >
> > > > >    "Why the &lt;FONT&gt; Tag is Bad"^^rdf:XMLLiteral
> > > >
> > > >Eh? Really?
> > > >
> > > >Don't you mean
> > > >
> > > >    "Why the <FONT> Tag is Bad"^^rdf:XMLLiteral
> > > >
> > > >Surely the entities are resolved the same as for any
> > > >literal.
> > >
> > > Not by my reading of Concepts:
> > >
> > > [[
> > > The lexical space
> > >      is the set of all strings which:
> > >
> > >          * are well-balanced, self-contained XML data [XML];
> > >          * correspond to exclusive Canonical XML (with
> > > comments, with empty
> > > InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList ) [XML-XC14N];
> > >          * when embedded between an arbitrary XML start tag
> > > and an end tag
> > > form a document conforming to XML Namespaces [XML-NS]
> > > ]]
> > > --
> > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/
> > > #section-XMLLiteral
> > >
> > > which would require the '<' and '>' here to be &-escaped.
> > > When the XML
> > > literal is eventually interpreted, you'd get the bare '<' and '>'
> > > characters back.
> > >
> > > [...removes sleeping cat from copy of syntax spec...]
> > >
> > > Looking at the syntax spec, struggling a bit...
> > >
> > > [Dave:  Should section "6.1.2 Element Event" be "Start
> > > Element Event", and
> > > should there be a description of what the "string-value" accessor
> > > returns?  Maybe not, but I note section 6.1 says that all
> > > events have a
> > > string-value accessor.]
> > >
> > > Ah, got it:
> > >
> > > In the syntax spec, we have sections 7.2.17 and 7.2.33 which
> > > together claim
> > > the literal string value is the exclusive XML 
> canonicalization of the
> > > content, which I think means that the escaping of '&', '<'
> > > and '>' has to
> > > be re-inserted:
> > >
> > > [[
> > > The string used as the lexical form of the XML Literal is the
> > > Exclusive XML
> > > Canonicalization [XML-XC14N]) with comments and with empty
> > > InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList of the literal text l, 
> i.e. the entire
> > > element content of this property element.
> > > ]]
> > > --
> > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-200
> >30117/#parseTypeLiteralPropertyElt
> >
> >[Dave:  is it worth adding a note to clarify this point?]
> >
> >
> >
> > >If you wanted/needed
> > >
> > >     "Why the &lt;FONT&gt; Tag is Bad"^^rdf:XMLLiteral
> > >
> > >then you'd have to say
> > >
> > >   <title rdf:parseType='Literal'>Why the 
> &amp;lt;FONT&amp;gt; Tag is
> > > Bad</title>
> > >
> > >No?
> > >
> > >If this is not the case, then I've really missing something
> > >major here and am very alarmed!
> >
> >I think that may be workable, but it's not how I read the 
> documents we're
> >working on.
> >
> >(Note that this formulation of the abstract syntax is for 
> definitional
> >purposes, and does not of itself require that an application 
> do this.  You
> >may have some other way of storing an XML literal which is 
> fine as long as
> >you get the same final answers.)
> >
> >#g
> >
> >
> >-------------------
> >Graham Klyne
> ><GK@NineByNine.org>
> >PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
> 
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 10:36:12 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:50 EDT