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

Issue reagle-02 exc-c14n throughout [was Re: Please review RDF Last Call]

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:29:16 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030131142736.09c98210@localhost>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, reagle@w3.org, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, n-shiraishi@w3.org

At 14:47 30/01/2003 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

[...]
Recorded as

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-02

Brian

> > I'm confused by this because most of the specifications are citing 
> Canonical
> > XML (c14n), not Exclusive Canonicalization (exc-c14n).
>
>The process is intended to be two-phase:
>
>The first phase takes an RDF/XML document and constructs an RDF graph.
>In this phase it is not required to actually canonicalize, but it is required
>to retain all the information needed for exc-c14n.
>
>The second phase, which many RDF applications don't actually ever do is from
>the graph to its formal meaning; for these it concerns the meaning of the
>string delivered by the parser. This second stage is determined by the
>mapping defined in RDF Concepts. This second stage uses c14n on the grounds
>that whatever the parser delivered (which is intended as implementation
>dependent) is then preserved.
>
>The semantics doc picks up after the parser has left off, i.e. with the RDF
>graph - at this point we no longer have an XML document to refer to, and so
>we use C14N over the fragment.
>
>Admittedly, it might be clearer to specify the use of exc-c14n throughout -
>this would work except for nasty cases like XSLT, that invisibly use the
>namespace prefices.
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 09:28:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT