W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: [closed] reagle-01 reagle-02 XMLLiterals and exc-c14n

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 16:54:16 -0400
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, <eric@w3.org>, <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Message-Id: <200304081654.16925.reagle@w3.org>

On Tuesday 08 April 2003 06:01, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> > > 5. the following implementation note is added to concepts:
> > > any other equivalent form.  As an example:
> > > literals with datatype <tt>rdf:XMLLiteral</tt>s can be represented
> > > in a non-canonical
> > > format, and canonicalization performed during the comparison between
> > > two such literals
> > The second fragment after the "and" confuses me.
> I will give an example here and then hope that we can discuss the text.

My original problem is the text: the ungrammatical second fragment. If one 
is saying that c14n is optional, I can understand that, I just completely 
fail to understand the fragment. Now, let's presume that your example would 
clarify the intent and if I'd then have substantive response. <smile/>

[Later after staring at the text some more...] Oh, is that second fragment a 
second example?! In which case, instead of "an example" it should state 
"two examples include"?

> The string '<b xmlns="eg:b"></b>' for the value of eg:p1 and the string
> '<b xmlns="eg:b"/>' as the value of eg:p2.
> An application that does this as caused trouble for itself if and when a
> comparison is made between these two.

Agreed.

> Since we know that there are RDF applications, such as RSS, in which
> these comparisons are never made, the application writer can 'optimise'
> such code (for cost) by not writing it.

I can understand this. I don't know if that will introduce problems out in 
the "wild", I suppose that is best undestand with respect to conformance. 
Is an RSS application/processor defined and this is an optional feature? Or 
is there no RSS application/processor, but a data model and syntax and this 
is trying to say that the serialized form will always be c14n but internal 
representations are out-of-scope and of course can do what they link and if 
they never serialize, they'll never have to worry about this bit?
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 16:54:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT