W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Closing ISSUE-13

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 14:53:54 +0100
Cc: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, public-rdf-wg Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2BD507EC-AF48-49C5-8C38-C34AE20CFCC7@cyganiak.de>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

On 10 May 2012, at 14:20, Ivan Herman wrote:
> So you are right, it works, thanks to those clever DOM3 editors:-). Is it worth putting a note into the document to make this clear?

I don't know. Having worked with DOM DocumentFragments before, I had assumed intuitively that two DocumentFragments would be equal iff their childNodes are equal. And that is indeed the case with isEqualNode. So, for me, the text as is works fine.

Yet another option might be to simplify the L2V mapping, leaving some steps as an exercise to the reader. For example:

The lexical-to-value mapping is defined as follows:

   Let domfrag be a DOM DocumentFragment node [DOM-LEVEL-3-CORE]
    corresponding to the literal's lexical form
   Return domfrag.normalize()

This does a bit of handwaving by assuming that there is an obvious and well-defined correspondence between members of the lexical space and DOM DocumentFragments. I think this simpler wording would avoid some confusion, but implementers might have to think a bit harder about how to implement this given the tools they have. I prefer this simplified wording.

Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 13:54:29 UTC

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