- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 13:59:25 -0400
- To: "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
- CC: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
> Note that in TC100, TC101, TC102, TC103 I've used the same markup in the
> SPARQL as in the XHTML (<svg:rect svg:width="200" svg:height="100"/>
> rather than <svg:rect
> svg:width="200" svg:height="100"></svg:rect>) as I don't see why this
> should change. Thoughts?
I think what you've done is correct, Michael - but it causes a bit of a
headache for the librdfa parser, which is SAX-based. This is a general
issue with non-DOM based parsers.
When the XML parser notifies librdfa's parser that an element has ended,
there is no way for me to know if the author did this:
<svg:rect></svg:rect>
or this:
<svg:rect />
or this
<svg:rect/>
This means that even though the XML Literal is syntactically correct
(somebody correct me if I'm wrong, not 100% positive of the previous
statement), it will fail Test Cases 100-103. librdfa fails Test Cases
100-103 right now because of this issue. I -could- tweak librdfa's
output to generate what the test expects, but I think that wouldn't
address the issue. I think the Unit Tests need to change and have an
alternate that they support:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASK WHERE {{
<http://www.example.org> <http://example.org/rdf/example> "Some text
here in <strong xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml\"
xmlns:dc=\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\"
xmlns:ex=\"http://example.org/rdf/\"
xmlns:rdf=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#\"
xmlns:svg=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\">bold</strong> and an svg
rectangle: <svg:svg xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml\"
xmlns:dc=\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\"
xmlns:ex=\"http://example.org/rdf/\"
xmlns:rdf=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#\"
xmlns:svg=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\"><svg:rect svg:width=\"200\"
svg:height=\"100\"/></svg:svg>"^^<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral>
. }
UNION
{ <http://www.example.org> <http://example.org/rdf/example> "Some text
here in <strong xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml\"
xmlns:dc=\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\"
xmlns:ex=\"http://example.org/rdf/\"
xmlns:rdf=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#\"
xmlns:svg=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\">bold</strong> and an svg
rectangle: <svg:svg xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml\"
xmlns:dc=\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\"
xmlns:ex=\"http://example.org/rdf/\"
xmlns:rdf=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#\"
xmlns:svg=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\"><svg:rect svg:width=\"200\"
svg:height=\"100\"></svg:rect></svg:svg>"^^<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral>
.
}}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only change is allowing both alternatives of the XML Literal
including /> as well as </svg:rect> to successfully pass the test. I'd
prefer if TCs 100-103 were updated to reflect this realization (unless,
of course, my understanding of what a "correct" XML Literal is wrong).
-- manu
--
Manu Sporny
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: DB Launches Medical Record Sales Service with Shepherd Medical
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2008/02/24/health2trade/
Received on Monday, 26 May 2008 18:00:07 UTC