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

RE: Proposal to close reagle-01 reagle-02

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:02:58 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B5FBB53@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 27 March, 2003 11:59
> To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Proposal to close reagle-01 reagle-02
> Summary: accept in full.
> Propose to make the following changes to the documents:
> Syntax:
> =======
> In section 7.2.17
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123/#pars
> eTypeLiteralPr
> opertyElt
> New text:
> [[
> The string used as the lexical form of the XML Literal
> is the Exclusive XML Canonicalization [XML-XC14N])
> with comments and with empty <a href="
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/#def-Inclu
> siveNamespaces
> -PrefixList
> ">
> InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList
> </a>
> of the
> literal text l, i.e. the entire element content
> of this property element.
> ]]

I'm presuming that this is a requirement on the output of an RDF
parser, from which the lexical form is actually interned in a given
system (graph) and not a requirement on a human being who may be 
creating XML literal lexical forms in an RDF/XML serialization
using a plain text editor.

I.e., in the RDF/XML, any well formed XML is acceptable, right?

If this is a requirement on the human, then this is not IMO acceptable.
We cannot require "normal" folks to grok XML canonicalization and
restrict themselves to only creating XML literals accordingly.

It would be good if the syntax spec were clear on this point. It was
not clear to me, even after several readings.
Received on Monday, 31 March 2003 02:03:08 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:16 EDT