- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:36:23 -0400
- To: RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
> Philip Taylor wrote: >> The RDFa spec examples seem okay in terms of c14n, but >> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/rdfa.html (in yesterday's draft) >> still has an example that looks like N3/Turtle syntax and has a >> non-canonical XML string. XML c14n is certainly not a strong point of mine. I've looked over the triple in the HTML+RDFa draft and am also responsible for most of those XMLLiteral tests in the RDFa Test Suite. I thought I knew what was wrong with the tests in the test suite, but your and Ivan's discussion has made me second guess my understanding (or lack thereof) of XML c14n. Could you please point out exactly what is wrong with the example in: http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/rdfa.html#invalid-xmlliteral-values Both of you seem to be asserting that c14n should be applied differently than I understand it to the example in the HTML+RDFa draft. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: The Pirate Bay and Building an Equitable Culture http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/08/30/equitable-culture/
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 18:37:05 UTC