- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:08:37 +0000
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-11-21, at 19:32, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Below are six questions on XML literals. Please help the WG get a feeling for the general opinion within the group by answering the questions. Answers in the usual +1/±0/-1 style are appropriate. > > Thanks, > Richard > > > > Q1. Should the specs define a way to compare XML literals based on value? No. > Q2. Should the specs say that RDF implementations MUST support value-based comparison? No. > Q3. Should the *lexical* space be in canonical form? No. > Q4. Should *invalid XML* be allowed in the lexical space? Probably not. [Though I doubt many RDF systems will refuse to store "1.0"^^xsd:integer for example, so it may be tilting at windmills] > Q5. Should the specs say that RDF/XML parsers MUST canonicalize when handling parseType="literal"? Maybe. MAY/SHOULD would be fine. > Q6. Should it be required that producers of XML literals in concrete syntaxes (Turtle, N-Triples, other parseTypes in RDF/XML) canonicalize the literals themselves? No. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 17:09:10 UTC