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@[10.0.100.23]>
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.
>
><http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/#def-exclusive-canonical-XML>
>
>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 ).
>
><http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-XMLLiteral>
>
>I think "XML in exclusive canonical form" can indeed only be taken 
>as octets; an abstract XML infoset certainly cannot be in canonical 
>form.
>
>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 GMT

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