W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > March 2002

RE: parseType="literal"

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:47:21 -0000
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002301c1ca95$99bc5900$887ba8c0@mitchum>
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>  Dave Beckett
>
> >>>tarod@softhome.net said:
> > 
> >   We are having some problems using the parseType literal and
> > including some xml in the literal.
> > 
> >   in the description they say "any well-formed xml", is it
> > right? 
> 
> In the RDF Model and Syntax document, it allows any legal
> element content, which is more than just well-formed.  
> Well-formed is allowed.

It's worth pointing out that this is an interpretation that RDF
Core has agreed on. Though I'm not sure if that's formally recorded
anywhere as such; it ought to be. It would have helped a bit if the
M&S had just used "element content" instead of "well-formed XML".
Certainly using both was a bad idea: they're both defined in
XML1.0.

 
> Some quotes:
> 
>   [[The attribute parseType="Literal" specifies that the element
>   content is an RDF literal. Any markup that is part of this
> content 
>   is included as part of the literal and not interpreted by
> RDF.]]  
> 
>   [[This specification does not state a mechanism for determining
>   equivalence between literals that contain markup, nor whether
> such 
>   a mechanism is guaranteed to exist.]]
> 
>   -- http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#

On the other hand the specification doesn't really discuss in great
detail any literals other than "well-formed XML" ones, it does
allude to string literals in a few places as I recall. 


> The original M&S did not define the contents of parseType
> literal content or what happened to it in applications, so 
> the above is legitimate, if surprising. 

That's correct for applications, incorrect for definition:

"In all cases, the content of an element have a parseType attribute
must be well-formed XML"

A narrow reading can understand the above as a contradictory
statement (read it again), but more likely just as "well-formed
XML"; presumably that's what the "must" is there for. The M&S does
refer to element content in the BNF notes at the beginning of the
paragraph I took this quote from. There's a
we'll-fix-this-next-time disclaimer immediately after this
paragraph. 

Hmm...I never seem to be sure what this spec is saying to me.

Bill de hÓra


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.4

iQA/AwUBPI9YZeaWiFwg2CH4EQLBZgCfZG+iT7WP09vrcAoxKD142CZ3mAwAn2yw
f4SR/JQEIeezaCnz+tLdMtLa
=isuC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 08:52:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:53 GMT