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

RE: Made rdf:HTML/XMLLiteral non-normative

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 17:44:07 +0100
To: "'Richard Cyganiak'" <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: "'RDF Working Group WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <033b01cefb47$350198f0$9f04cad0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 4:18 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
[...]
> > So, to move forward, my proposal would simply be
> >
> > PROPOSAL: Drop the "If the IRI ...#XMLLiteral/#HTML is recognized then
it
> > refers to the datatype rdf:XMLLiteral/rdf:HTML" statements in section
5.4 of
> > RDF Concepts.
> 
> In that case, an implementation that accepts "<not>well-
> formed"^^rdf:XMLLiteral would be conforming. This behaviour would not
> constitue a bug. It would not be broken.

No, and even if we made rdf:XMLLiteral normative that wouldn't change since
it is optional. Yeah, implementations that claim to recognize rdf:XMLLiteral
and would accept it would be non-conforming. That's suboptimal but the more
important point IMO is that two implementations that do recognize
rdf:XMLLiteral will not be *able* to fully interoperate because the l2v
mapping is not stable. Do I miss something here?


> The DOM4 problem we have is with the value space only. There's no
> problem with the lexical space. There's every reason to *require*
> implementations to do the right thing for the lexical space. The
> lexical space is more critical for interoperability anyways.

The lexical space of rdf:HTML is "the set of Unicode [UNICODE] strings" and
thus doesn't add any constraints. Again, do I miss something here?


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 16:44:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:37 UTC