Andy, I know you had to dive into this issue more often than I did, would you mind creating an issue to describe problems more precisely? I know we had major discussions in the RDFa WG at a time as for what exactly a generated XML Literal should look like, does it have to be a canonical XML version or not, things like that. It may only need some explanations, though. Thx Ivan On Mar 7, 2011, at 11:16 , Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > 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. > > Andy > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 12:18:15 UTC