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

RE: Is there a test case for this?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:19:37 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B026302EC@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <gk@ninebynine.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Cc: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Graham Klyne [mailto:gk@ninebynine.org]
> Sent: 10 September, 2003 10:23
> To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Is there a test case for this?
> 
> 
> 
> This arises from the I18N debate, but is a distinct issue 
> which I think is 
> important to be clear about.
> 
> (Not knowing my way around the test cases...)
> 
> What graph does this denote?
> 
>    <rdf:Description>
>      <eg:prop>foo &lt; bar</eg:prop>
>    </rdf:Description>
> 
> I think it should be:
> 
>    _:a eg:prop "foo < bar" .

I agree.

> but others (including the W3C RDF validator service) seem to 
> think differently.
> 
> My rationale is:
> 
> - RDF/XML syntax is based on infoset
> - creation of infoset from textual XML input replaces 
> entities, so '&lt;' 
> becomes '<'
> - RDF/XML syntax specification (as I recall) does not specify 
> that '<' in 
> literals is mapped back to '&lt;'
> 
> Am I wrong?

I don't think so (but then, I could be wrong too ;-)

Patrick

> #g
> 
> 
> ------------
> Graham Klyne
> GK@NineByNine.org
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2003 04:19:59 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 10 September 2003 04:20:03 EDT