W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

RE: RDF-ISSUE-177: XMLLiteral and HTML [RDF Concepts]

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 22:37:07 +0100
To: "'RDF Working Group WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "'Richard Cyganiak'" <richard@cyganiak.de>
Message-ID: <027001cef526$d03e0190$70ba04b0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
+1, will you send it Richard?


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Cyganiak [mailto:richard@cyganiak.de]
> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 8:25 PM
> To: RDF Working Group WG
> Subject: Re: RDF-ISSUE-177: XMLLiteral and HTML [RDF Concepts]
> 
> Proposed answer:
> 
> [[
> The purpose of both datatypes is to enable text with markup in HTML
> graphs. The XMLLiteral datatype was added to the original 2004 spec due
> to i18n requirements (e.g., bidirectional text, mixed-language text,
> and Ruby markup). This datatype is now widely deployed for a number of
> use cases, and removing it is realistically no longer possible.
> 
> Since XHTML has not seen the adoption that was expected back in the
> days of the previous WG, the HTML datatype has now been added as a more
> author-friendly alternative that addresses the same requirements.
> 
> The only RDF-WG specification that requires an XML parser for a
> conforming implementation is RDF/XML. There are no conformance criteria
> on any of the other documents that require an XML parser or HTML
> parser.
> 
> Implementing, for example, graph equivalence over these datatypes would
> require such a parser, but no entailment regime requires that these
> datatypes be recognised. Simpler put, the datatypes are optional.
> Implementations may elect to not support them, which means they simply
> treat these datatypes like any other unrecognised datatype: as strings
> that carry a marker for a certain syntax.
> 
> Implementing XMLLiteral in RDF 1.1 is considerably easier than before
> because the requirement for XML canonicalisation has been removed.
> 
> The most natural way to associate HTML or XML resources with an RDF
> graph is perhaps not what you propose, but something more like this:
> 
>   <example.com/mydocument.xml> dc:format "text/xml".
> 
> This has been possible since RDF 2004.
> ]]
> 
> Best,
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8 Dec 2013, at 18:50, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> > RDF-ISSUE-177: XMLLiteral and HTML [RDF Concepts]
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/177
> >
> > Raised by: Andy Seaborne
> > On product: RDF Concepts
> >
> > Recorded : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-
> comments/2013Dec/0005.html
> >
> >
> >
Received on Monday, 9 December 2013 21:37:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:36 UTC