W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Possible solutions for ISSUE 97

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:15:12 +0000
Message-ID: <a707f8300803200615h6c0128f8tdd0471dc0d86417a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Hi Ivan,

>  maybe we should wait for Ben to see what he wanted; I think what he gave
>  is two serializations of the same Graph, which included an XML Literal.

Once again...that is assuming that it is possible to serialise the
same graph in two different ways.


>  More to the point. What I would like to understand (because, frankly, I
>  do not) *what* is, in your view, what should appear (1) in a revised
>  RDFa syntax document and (2) in the test cases (which was the original
>  comment of Johannes)?

I feel the same way, though...I'm no longer sure what you are arguing.

I said in response to Johannes that we needed to be clearer about our
XML literal support, but the problem with that is that it requires the
processor to do quite a bit of work.

I thought that you and Ben were saying that this is unnecessary, and
that all an RDFa parser had to do was to store the mark-up unchanged.

So since then, I thought we have been discussing whether that is a
correct interpretation of XML literals in the RDF Concepts document.

However, in your other email you said:

> - an informative note may have to be added to the syntax text warning
> implementers that they have to add the necessary namespaces

But that is hardly a side issue...it's the very thing we're
discussing--that is canonicalisation.

So if you are now saying that in order to support rdf:XMLLiterals, we
need to point out that the RDF graph produced by an RDFa parser would
have XML literals in, which *by definition* are in Exclusive
Canonicalised Form, then I can live with that.

I'm increasingly convinced that we should stay away from XML literals,
but if the group is happy with this answer, then let's go with it. My
point is simply that if we are going to 'do' XML literals, they need
to be done properly.

Regards,

Mark

-- 
  Mark Birbeck

  mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.x-port.net | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  x-port.net Ltd. is registered in England and Wales, number 03730711
  The registered office is at:

    2nd Floor
    Titchfield House
    69-85 Tabernacle Street
    London
    EC2A 4RR
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2008 13:15:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:56 UTC