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: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:33:48 +0100
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Message-Id: <20030918153348.1b56978d.dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:44:59 +0200
Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.)

I don't recall having seen you mention that section before in your earlier comments.

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

Actually Jeremy, Peter is asking for a change in a new section.

Since there wasn't an example, let me write one.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
         xmlns:ex="http://example.org/ex#">
  <rdf:Description>
    <ex:a rdf:datatype="http://example.org/dturi">abc123</ex:a>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Which is a typed literal covered by production 7.2.16.  So the question
is does "abc123" have to be in NFC?  I think the answer is yes - and we
already have decided this as a WG, so this is a bug in the syntax
document that can be fixed.  We can do this by ammending the wording in
7.2.16 to require NFC for typed-literal() (as already required for
literal() in that paragraph).

Dave
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2003 10:40:48 GMT

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