Re: Unescaped XML in the SPARQL XML Result Format and Tuesday's agenda

Hi everyone,

I vote for support of unescaped XML texts in the ..Results XML...
because it could be convenient for XSLT and similar tools that may be
used to transform result sets of different formats into each other. It
is also definitely more readable. It also resembles RDF/XML decision.

There should be an attribute that will indicate the difference between a
string and an XML entity that consists of a string. I'm in doubt whether
we should support generic entities there or just XML trees, so  probably
we should repeat RDF/XML decision.

I understand that unescaped XML texts may add problems for some
lightweight parsers of the format but these problems are minor and not
common for all implementations whereas convenient report format is a
worth thing for everybody.

I also understand that this will 'relax' XML Schema of the document but
I don't care :)

Best Regards,
Ivan Mikhailov.

On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 00:58 -0400, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Eric is at risk for Tuesday; Orri and Ivan M can't make it, and I have 
> schedule-crunch. We're still doing well towards a decision to move to 
> PR, but I think we might shorten up this Tuesday's teleconf and push the 
> meat of our work to a week from Tuesday.
> 
> We do have one issue that we need to tackle ASAP:
> 
> On August 2, we received a comment from Stu Baurmann:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2007Aug/0005.html
> 
> The message brings up the possibility of including unescaped XML literal 
> values in the SPARQL Query Results XML Format. Although Richard Newman 
> responded with some technical concerns about the suggestion, the Working 
> Group never responded. We owe Stu a response before publishing a CR 
> version of the XML results format.
> 
> I'd like to know if there is anyone on the working group who would like 
> to consider this suggestion and propose a design for it. I know that 
> Andy had some technical concerns about it and there are also, of course, 
> schedule concerns, but in the interest of due diligence I wanted to give 
> working group members who might support this comment a chance to speak up.
> 
> So please register your support or active lack of support on the mailing 
> list if you can, and we'll attempt to dispatch of the comment on 
> Tuesday's teleconference.
> 
> For Tuesday, I'm picturing taking up this issue and then going over 
> where we stand in terms of advancing all three of our specifications to 
> PR, and seeing who has what actions on the critical path between here 
> and there. I'm hoping to keep the call to 30 minutes.
> 
> The flip side is that I'm expecting a somewhat lengthy call the week 
> after -- probably on the order of 90 minutes. Please let us know as soon 
> sa you can if you cannot make our call on Oct 2.
> 
> Lee
>

Received on Saturday, 22 September 2007 06:01:46 UTC