- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 12:22:45 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 09/05/12 11:54, Ivan Herman wrote: > As Richard emphasized in his mail, XML Literal and, if approved, > HTML5 Literals are optional. If implementation do not want to > implement equality checking on these literals, that is fine. However, > if they _do_ want to do that, than we should define what equality > means. That is where the value space issue comes into the picture. > > I think that real issue we have to solve, however, is to keep the > lexical space as unconstrained as possible. The current XML Literal > definition seemed to be very ambiguous in this respect and it was > never 100% clear whether an RDF file in, say, Turtle, should include > a canonical XML for the literal or not. My reading of the current state: The lexical space of rdf:XMLLiterals is exclusive Canonical XML (RDF concepts). The requirement to perform canonicalization is in the RDF/XML syntax doc and not elsewhere. That does apply to Turtle or N-Triples. A non-canonical literal for ^^rdf:XMLLiteral is an illegal literal. Like writing "foo"^^xsd:integer. > This led to long discussions > among, eg, RDFa implementers at a time on what _exactly_ should be > generated by an RDFa processor. If we say that the lexical space is > very lax, and we have a clear definition of equality (whether we > define equality via Infosets or DOM tree equality is a detail in this > respect) then the situation becomes clear and, because these > datatypes are not required, there is no issue with conformance > either. What did RDFa decide? Andy > > Ivan
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 11:23:30 UTC