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

Re: Test case regarding XML Literals and octets

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:12:02 -0500
Message-Id: <p06001a5ebb4f523c90af@[]>
To: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
Cc: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, msm@w3.org, w3c-rdf-core-wg@w3.org

>Hi Graham,
>Graham Klyne wrote:
>>as far as I can tell, you're contradicting the XML canonicalization spec.
>>Is canonical XML a sequence of octets or something else?
>>The XML canonicalization spec, I understand, says it's a sequence of octets.
>I can see what you're saying. The XML c14n spec says that
>     The term exclusive canonical XML refers to XML that is in
>     exclusive canonical form.
>which is refered to by
>     The lexical-to-value mapping [of XMLLiterals] maps a string to the
>     corresponding exclusive Canonical XML (with comments, with empty
>     InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList ).
>I think "XML in exclusive canonical form" can indeed only be taken 
>as octets; an abstract XML infoset certainly cannot be in canonical 
>I believe that it is a bad idea to treat XML literals like this, though.

Surely that is a matter to take up with the folk who wrote the XML 
specification? It is not our task to re-write a normative 
specification document written by another working group.

Pat Hayes

IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 19:12:11 UTC

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