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

Re: XML literals, canonical form, and normal form C problem

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:44:59 +0200
Message-ID: <3F69B6DB.3010404@hpl.hp.com>
To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk


Peter:
 > I believe that this response does not adequately address the issue as it
 > does not address the case of typed literals in Production 7.2.16. 
(Untyped
 > literals are handled correctly in this production.)

We agreed with this which is why we proposed a rewording of that 
production: i.e.

replace
 > > [[
 > >
 > > If the rdf:datatype attribute d is given then o :=
 > typed-literal(literal-value
 > > := t.string-value, literal-datatype := d.string-value) otherwise
 > > t.string-value MUST be a Unicode[UNICODE] string in Normal Form 
C[NFC], o
 > :=
 > > literal(literal-value := t.string-value, literal-language := 
e.language)
 > and
 > > the
 > > ]]
 > >
 > > with
 > > [[
 > > The Unicode [UNICODE] string t.string-value MUST be in Normal Form 
C[NFC].
 > > If the rdf:datatype attribute d is given then o :=
 > typed-literal(literal-value
 > > := t.string-value, literal-datatype := d.string-value), otherwise o :=
 > > literal(literal-value := t.string-value, literal-language := 
e.language).
 > The
 > > ..
 > > ]]




Peter:
 >I think that there needs to be some text somewhere in the RDF documents
 >indicating which portions of an RDF/XML document must be in Normal 
Form >C.

*needs* seems quite strong for this issue.
The formal grammar serves this function.
The best advice to document authors is to read charmod, and avoid 
non-NFC text. The best advice to implementors is the formal grammar.



 >I believe that it is possible to have a valid RDF/XML document which when
 >interpreted as a Unicode string is not in Normal Form C.

Correct. For example, within XML Comments, and XML processing 
instructions. However, such documents will not be valid XML 1.1.

I do not believe further changes are needed on this issue.

Are you dissatisified? If so, I will propose that the WG records your 
objection and moves on.

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2003 10:06:08 GMT

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