- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:29:16 +0000
- 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 UTC