- From: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 01:45:10 +0200
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- 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
pat hayes wrote: >> 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. Why is it the job of the folk who wrote the XML specification to decide how XML literals are treated? AFAIK, XML literals are defined in a specification written by RDFCore. (Sorry to use split-hair logic, but it seems to me that you're doing the same. ;-) ) As I have quoted in the part of my mail that you cut, the Exclusive Canonical XML spec states that Exclusive Canonical XML is a serialization of an XPath node-set. So an exclusive canonical XML document denotes an XPath node-set, not an octet sequence. It is your choice that XML literals denote Exclusive Canonical XML (as opposed to, XPath node-sets, or XML infosets, neither of which are octets) and in my opinion that's a bad choice. You can disagree, but I don't think you can claim that the choice isn't yours. Cheers, - Benja
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 19:47:00 UTC