- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 13:26:08 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Done. BTW, Jeremy is the expert here. I have used his work and code when writing RDF validation code. Andy On 07/03/11 12:19, Ivan Herman wrote: > 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 13:26:48 UTC