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

Re: pfps-04 (why the thread is germane to pfps-04)

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:59:31 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, msm@w3.org

At 21:33 03/07/25 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>

> > At 07:54 03/07/25 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> > >However other answers are harder to determine.
> > >
> > >1/ When is an XML literal equal to a plain RDF literal?  A plain RDF
> > >literal is a Unicode string (sequence of Unicode characters), so this
> > >question boils down to whether octets and Unicode characters are disjoint.
> > >I found it difficult to answer this question, because of hints in the
> > >exclusive canonicalization document that they are not.
> >
> > Can you point to the places where you saw such hints. If there are
> > such hints, then they definitely have to be fixed, and I'll make
> > sure that this happens.
>The examples in Section 2 of
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/ give canonical XML
>documents as if they were sequences of Unicode characters.  This indicates
>that octets are Unicode characters.

There is an explicit counterexample at
Is this good enough, or not? If not, I'll ask the XML Signature
people to add a clarification.

I can understand that this may be a bit confusing. But in some
way, it's the same as for integers: We can't directly visualize
integers. So we use strings of digits (characters) to show them.
The same with octets: We can't directly visualize sequences of
octets. So we use sequences of characters to show them.

Regards,    Martin.
Received on Sunday, 27 July 2003 22:13:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:21 UTC