W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Was: Should we define Graph Literal datatypes?

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 10:16:01 +0000
Message-ID: <4D74B061.7020605@epimorphics.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

On 07/03/11 05:51, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Andy,
> I was actually wondering whether there should not be a cleanup
> action/issue on XML Literals, namely their equality rules. There is a
> mess in my mind compared to different canonicalization algorithms,
> and I also wonder whether the references are still o.k. I know you
> have dived into this much more than I did...
> Ivan

Yes - worth recording as a cleanup item.  I've had to dive in to answer 
user questions (a recent one being "why does this GML literal not pass 
validation" - answer: attributes not in sorted order).

Whether it makes the cutline due to resourcing is then separate.

Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 10:16:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:03 UTC