Re: Closing ISSUE-13

It should be clear to anyone who's read the whole thread that you've 
cleared out the issue already as far as the interpretation of the DOM spec 
goes but since I was specifically prompted I'll confirm that your 
interpretation of the DOM spec is correct.

I do favor Richard's simplified mapping though. The notion of using an 
arbitrary set of XML tags to then ignore it does nothing but confuse 
things in my opinion.
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group

From:   Ivan Herman <>
To:     Richard Cyganiak <>, 
Cc:     Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, David Wood 
<>, public-rdf-wg Group WG <>
Date:   05/10/2012 07:10 AM
Subject:        Re: Closing ISSUE-13

As they say "ain't broken, don't fix it"... Leave it as is. It works.


On May 10, 2012, at 15:53 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> Ivan,
> 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 
> Richard

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead

mobile: +31-641044153

Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 16:54:02 UTC